Recent experience with the Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) has raised a number of concerns about its practical applications. The concerns are principally involved with the concept of having the computer construct the test from a precalibrated item pool, and substituting statistical characteristics for the test developer's skills. Problems with…

Using simulated item response data, the performance of several "robust" and conventional schemes for ability estimation was evaluated in conjunction with logistic item response theory models (one, two, and three parameter models). The simulated item response data were generated using a model that is more complex than are the usual…

Three different applications of the testlet concept are presented, and the psychometric models most suitable for each application are described. Difficulties that testlets can help overcome include (1) context effects; (2) item ordering; and (3) content balancing. Implications for test construction are discussed. (SLD)

Two attempts to adjust state mean Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores for differential participation rates are examined. Both attempts are rejected, and five rules for performing adjustments are outlined to foster follow-up checks on untested assumptions. National Assessment of Educational Progress state data are determined to be more accurate.…

Hierarchical (adaptive) and linear methods of testlet construction were compared. The performance of 2,080 ninth and tenth graders on a 4-item testlet was used to predict performance on the entire test. The adaptive test was slightly superior as a predictor, but the cost of obtaining that superiority was considerable. (SLD)

It is suggested that some of the technology applied to state Scholastic Aptitude Test scores to measure states' educational performance (particularly use of a truncated Gaussian model) may make it possible to adjust National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores to make inferences about state educational progress possible. (SLD)

Describes recent research attempts to draw inferences about the relative standing of the states on the basis of mean SAT scores. This paper identifies five serious errors that call into question the validity of such inferences. Some plausible ways to avoid the errors are described. (Author/LMO)