NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 5 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Meijer, Rob R. – Journal of Educational Measurement, 2004
Two new methods have been proposed to determine unexpected sum scores on sub-tests (testlets) both for paper-and-pencil tests and computer adaptive tests. A method based on a conservative bound using the hypergeometric distribution, denoted p, was compared with a method where the probability for each score combination was calculated using a…
Descriptors: Probability, Adaptive Testing, Item Response Theory, Scores
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Wainer, Howard; And Others – Journal of Educational Measurement, 1992
Computer simulations were run to measure the relationship between testlet validity and factors of item pool size and testlet length for both adaptive and linearly constructed testlets. Making a testlet adaptive yields only modest increases in aggregate validity because of the peakedness of the typical proficiency distribution. (Author/SLD)
Descriptors: Adaptive Testing, Comparative Testing, Computer Assisted Testing, Computer Simulation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Chen, Shu-Ying; Ankenman, Robert D. – Journal of Educational Measurement, 2004
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of four item selection rules--(1) Fisher information (F), (2) Fisher information with a posterior distribution (FP), (3) Kullback-Leibler information with a posterior distribution (KP), and (4) completely randomized item selection (RN)--with respect to the precision of trait estimation and the…
Descriptors: Test Length, Adaptive Testing, Computer Assisted Testing, Test Selection
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Wainer, Howard; And Others – Journal of Educational Measurement, 1991
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)
Descriptors: Adaptive Testing, Algebra, Comparative Testing, High School Students
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Wise, Steven L.; And Others – Journal of Educational Measurement, 1992
Performance of 156 undergraduate and 48 graduate students on a self-adapted test (SFAT)--students choose the difficulty level of their test items--was compared with performance on a computer-adapted test (CAT). Those taking the SFAT obtained higher ability scores and reported lower posttest state anxiety than did CAT takers. (SLD)
Descriptors: Adaptive Testing, Comparative Testing, Computer Assisted Testing, Difficulty Level