Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4

Mixed Adaptive Multistage Testing: A New Approach

Sayfa
358–373
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also presented.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized multistage testing (CMT) are two popular versions of adaptive testing with their own strengths and weaknesses.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A total of 3000 examinees were simulated from a truncated normal distribution with bounds at -3 and 3, and a simulation study was conducted.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also presented.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Computerized adaptive test · multistage adaptive test · simulation

Abstract

Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized multistage testing (CMT) are two popular versions of adaptive testing with their own strengths and weaknesses. This study proposes and investigates a combination of the two procedures designed to capture these strengths while minimizing the weaknesses by replacing the standard MST routing module with a CAT-based, item-level routing module. A total of 3000 examinees were simulated from a truncated normal distribution with bounds at -3 and 3, and a simulation study was conducted. Simulation results indicate that the new method provides some efficiency improvements over traditional MST when both routing modules are the same size, and when the item-level routing module is larger, the improvements are greater. The study showed that the proposed test administration model could be used to measure student ability, meaning that our new method resulted in lower mean bias, lower RMSE, and higher correlation than traditional MST. An R package built from the code used for this paper is also introduced in the supplementary file. The limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also presented.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SARI, H. I., RABORN, A. (2022). Mixed Adaptive Multistage Testing: A New Approach. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4, 358–373. https://ajindex.com/articles/497171

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (5)

  1. Armstrong, R. D., Jones, D. H., Li, X., & Wu, L. (1996). A study of a network-flow algorithm and a noncorrecting algorithm for test assembly. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 89-98. doi: 10.1177/014662169602000108 Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Abad, F. J. (2008). Incorporating randomness in the Fisher information for improving item‐exposure control in CATs. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 493-513. doi: 10.1348/000711007X230937 Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1981). An upper asymptote for the three-parameter logistic item-response model (ETS RR-81-20).
  2. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1981.tb01255.x Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord, & M. R. Novick, (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 17-20).
  3. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 431-444. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600405 Briethaupt, K., & Hare, D. R. (2007). Automated simultaneous assembly of multistage testlets for a high-stakes licensing examination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(1), 5-20. doi: 10.1177/0013164406288162 Chen, S. Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Chang, H. H. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 241-255. doi: 10.1177/01466210022031705 ILOG. (2006). ILOG CPLEX 10.0 [User’s Manual]. Paris: ILOG SA. Retrieved from https://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~liberti/teaching/xct/cplex/usrcplex.pdf
  4. Kim, H., & Plake, B. S. (1993). Monte Carlo simulation comparison of two-stage testing and computerized adaptive testing. Atlanta, GA: National Council on Measurement in Education. Kim, S., Moses, T., & Yoo, H. (2015). A comparison of IRT proficiency estimation methods under adaptive multistage testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52(1), 70-79. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12063
  5. Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., Gu, L., Xu, J., & Kong, N. (2015). Investigation of response changes in the GRE revised general test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(6), 1002-1020. doi: 10.1177/0013164415573988 Luecht, R. M., & Nungester, R. J. (2000). Computer-adaptive sequential testing. In W. J. van der Linden, & C. A. Glas, Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 117-128). Netherlands: Sp