Scoring Tests When Items Have Been Generated

Item Generation for Test Development

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 277-286

  Wright, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142582093     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410602145-21     Document Type: Chapter

References (9)

1. Albert, J. H. (1992). Bayesian estimation of normal ogive item response curves using Gibbs sampling, Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 251-269.
2. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1-38.
3. Fischer, G. H. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.
4. Hambleton, R. K., and Swaminanthan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
5. Irvine, S. H., Dann, P. L., and Anderson, J. D. (1990). Towards a theory of algorithmdetermined cognitive test construction. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 173-195.
6. MathSoft (1996). S-PLUS, Version 3.4. MathSoft.
7. Mislevy, R. J. (1988). Exploiting auxiliary information about items in the estimation Rasch item difficulty parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 281-296.
8. Mislevy, R. J., and Bock, R. D. (1983). BILOG: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
9. Wright, D. E., and Dennis, I. (1999). Exploiting the speed-accuracy trade-off. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, and R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual deferences (pp 231-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.