Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

Development of a Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test based on the Bifactor Model

Sayfa
323–342
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
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)

Lastly, the correlation between the PPT scores and general trait scores of 32 examinees was calculated as .77.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The purpose of this study was to conduct a real-time multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) using data from a previous paper-pencil test (PPT) regarding the grammar and vocabulary dimensions of an end-of-term proficiency exam conducted on students in a preparatory class at a university.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:An item pool was established through four separate 50-item sets applied in four different semesters.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Lastly, the correlation between the PPT scores and general trait scores of 32 examinees was calculated as .77.
🔬Tür:Laboratuvar & Saha Deneyi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing · Real-time Application · Bifactor Model

Özet

The purpose of this study was to conduct a real-time multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) using data from a previous paper-pencil test (PPT) regarding the grammar and vocabulary dimensions of an end-of-term proficiency exam conducted on students in a preparatory class at a university. An item pool was established through four separate 50-item sets applied in four different semesters. The fit between unidimensional, multi-unidimensional and bifactor IRT models was compared during item calibration, with the bifactor model providing the best fit for all data sets. This was followed by a hybrid simulation for 36 conditions obtained using six item selection methods, two ability estimation methods and three termination rules. The statistics and graphs obtained indicate D-rule item selection, maximum a posteriori (MAP) ability estimation and standard error termination rule as the best algorithm for the real-time MCAT application. With the minimum number of items to be administered determined as 10, the real-time application conducted on 99 examinees yielded an average number of items of 13.4. The PPT format proficiency exam consists of 50 items, leading to the conclusion that the examinees participating in the real-time MCAT are administered an average of 74.4% fewer items than the PPT. Additionally, 86 of the examinees answered between 10-13 items. The item pool use rate is 30%. Lastly, the correlation between the PPT scores and general trait scores of 32 examinees was calculated as .77.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct a real-time multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) using data from a previous paper-pencil test (PPT) regarding the grammar and vocabulary dimensions of an end-of-term proficiency exam conducted on students in a preparatory class at a university. An item pool was established through four separate 50-item sets applied in four different semesters. The fit between unidimensional, multi-unidimensional and bifactor IRT models was compared during item calibration, with the bifactor model providing the best fit for all data sets. This was followed by a hybrid simulation for 36 conditions obtained using six item selection methods, two ability estimation methods and three termination rules. The statistics and graphs obtained indicate D-rule item selection, maximum a posteriori (MAP) ability estimation and standard error termination rule as the best algorithm for the real-time MCAT application. With the minimum number of items to be administered determined as 10, the real-time application conducted on 99 examinees yielded an average number of items of 13.4. The PPT format proficiency exam consists of 50 items, leading to the conclusion that the examinees participating in the real-time MCAT are administered an average of 74.4% fewer items than the PPT. Additionally, 86 of the examinees answered between 10-13 items. The item pool use rate is 30%. Lastly, the correlation between the PPT scores and general trait scores of 32 examinees was calculated as .77.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GELBAL, S., ŞAHİN, M. D. (2022). Development of a Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test based on the Bifactor Model. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 323–342. https://ajindex.com/articles/540117

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Akyıldız, M. & Şahin, M. D. (2017). Açıköğretimde kullanılan sınavlardan Klasik Test Kuramına ve Madde Tepki Kuramına göre elde edilen yetenek ölçülerinin karşılaştırılması. AUAd, 3(4), 141-159.
  2. Bulut, O & Kan, A. (2012). Application of computerized adaptive testing to entrance examination for graduate studies in Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 61-80.
  3. Bock, R. D. & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algortihm. Pschometrika, 46(4), 443-459.
  4. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29.
  5. Chalmers, R. P. (2016). Generating adaptive and non-adaptive test interfaces for multidimensional item response theory applications. Journal of Statistical Software, 71(5), 1-38.
  6. Chang, W. (2019). Shiny: Web application framework for R. Version 1.3.2 Choi, S. W., Grady, M. W., & Dodd, B. G. (2010). A new stopping rule for computerized adaptive testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 37-53.
  7. DeMars, C. E. (2006). Application of the bi-factor multidimensional item response theory model to testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement. 43(2), 145–168.
  8. Eggen, T. (2007). Choices in CAT models in the context of educational testing. Paper presented at the CAT Models and Monitoring Paper Session, June 7, 2007 (Retrieved November 11, 2016, from http://publicdocs.iacat.org/cat2010/cat07eggen.pdf).
  9. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: an empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 357-374.
  10. Ferrando, P. & Chico, E. (2007). The external validity of scores based on the twoparameter logistic model: Some comparisons between IRT and CTT. Psicológica, 28, 237-257.
  11. Frey, A. & Nicki-Nils, S. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing in educational and psychological measurement: Current state and future challenges. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35. 89-94
  12. Frey A, Seitz N-N and Brandt S (2016) Testlet-Based Multidimensional Adaptive Testing. Front. Psychol., 7, 1758. Gelbal, S. (1994). P madde güçlük indeksi ile Rasch modelinin b parametresi ve bunlara dayalı yetenek ölçüleri üzerine bir karşılaştırma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  13. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Gibb