A comparison was made of the effects of a fixed and variable entry procedure on bias and information of a Bayesian adaptive test. It was found that neither the fixed nor the variable entry procedure produced biased ability estimates on the average. Both procedures did, however, offer biased ability estimates at the extremes of the ability distribution. Both procedures yielded peaked and asymmetric information curves, rather than ideal flat curves. Relative efficiency curves indicated that at no point along the ability continuum was one procedure more efficient than the other. The two procedures generate different item subsets for administration. In almost half the cases, the variable, in comparison with the fixed entry procedure, required more items to reach termination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, M. J. and Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
2.
ASVAB Working Group . (March, 1980). History of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) 1974-1980. A report to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics).
3.
Bayroff, A. G. and Fuchs, E. F. (February, 1970). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Technical Research Report 1161.
4.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). In Lord, F. M. and Novick, M. R. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Bock, D. A. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Department of Defense (October, 1987). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, Form 1304.12B 17B. Washington, D.C.
8.
Gorman, S. (1980). A comparison of the accuracy of Bayesian adaptive and static tests using a correction for regression. (pp. 35-50). In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 Computerized Adaptive Testing Strategy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 198 164).
9.
Gross, S. and Stevenson, J. (1986). Use of a computerized adaptive testing model for ESOL/Bilingual entrylexit decision-making: A preliminary study. A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
10.
Hambleton, R. K. and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
11.
Jensema, C. J. (1976). Bayesian tailored testing and the influence of item bank characteristics. (pp. 82-89). In C. L. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the first conference on computerized adaptive testing. Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 110).
12.
Jensema, C. J. (1977). Bayesian tailored testing and the influence of item bank characteristics. Applied Psychological Measurement, I (1), 111-120.
13.
Johnson, M. F. and Weiss, D. J. (1980). Parallel forms reliability and measurement accuracy comparison of adaptive and conventional testing strategies. (pp. 16-34). In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 164).
14.
Kingsbury, G. G. and Weiss, D. J. (1981). A validity comparison of adaptive and conventional strategies for mastery testing (Research Report 81-3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
15.
Lord, F. M. (1970). Some test theory for tailored testing. (pp. 139-183). In W. H. Holtzman (Ed.), Computer-assisted instruction, testing, and guidance. New York: Harper and Row. (Chapter 8).
16.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Practical applications of item response theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
Lord, F. M. and Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
18.
McBride, J. R. (1976). Adaptive testing research at Minnesota-some properties of a Bayesian sequential adaptive mental testing strategy. (pp. 35-53). In C. L. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the first conference on computerized adaptive testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 110).
19.
McBride, J. R. (1977). Some properties of a Bayesian adaptive ability testing strategy. Applied Psychological Measurement, I (1), 121-140.
20.
McBride, J. R. and Martin, J. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. (pp. 223-236). In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing. New York: Academic Press.
21.
McBride, J. R. and Moe, K. C. (1986). Computerized adaptive achievement testing: A prototype. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
22.
McBride, J. R. and Weiss, D. J. (1976). Some properties of a Bayesian adaptive ability testing strategy (Research Report 76-1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
23.
McKinley, R. L. and Reckase, M. D. (1981). A conmparison of a Bayesian and a Maximum Likelihood tailored testing procedure (Research Report 81-2). Columbia: University of Missouri, Tailored Testing Research Laboratory.
24.
Owen, R. J. (1969). A Bayesian approach to tailored testing. (Research Bulletin RB-69-92). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25.
Reckase, M. D. (1981). Procedures for Criterion-Referenced tailored testing (Final Report 1977-1981). Columbia: University of Missouri, Department of Educational Psychology.
26.
Rosso, M. A. and Reckase, M. D. (1981, April). A comparison of a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian ability estimation procedure for tailored testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Los Angeles, CA.
27.
Stevenson, J. W. and Salehi, S. (1986). Project Adapt: An investigation of testing procedures for functional testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
28.
Thompson, J. G. and Weiss, D. J. (1980). Criterion-related validity of adaptive testing strategies (Research Report 80-3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
29.
Urry, V. W. (1970). Individualized testing by Bayesian estimation. Bureau of Testing, published doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
30.
Urry, V. W. (1977). Tailored testing: A successful application of latent trait theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14 (2), 181-196.
31.
Vitola, B. M. and Alley, W. E. (September, 1968). Development and standardization of Air Force Composites for the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Air Force Human Resource Laboratory Technical Report 68-110 (AFHRL-TR-68-1 10). Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: Air Forces Human Resource Laboratory.
32.
Warm, T. A. (1978). A primer of item response theory. United States Coast Guard Institute, Oklahoma City, OK. United States Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service Technical Report 941278 AD-A063 072.
33.
Weiss, D. J. and McBride, J. R. (1983). Bias and information of Bayesian adaptive testing (Research Report 83-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
34.
Weiss, D. J. and McBride, J. R. (1984). Bias and information of Bayesian adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8 (3), 273-285.
35.
Wetzel, C. D. and McBride, J. R. (1983). Influence offallible item parameters on information during adaptive testing (Technical Report 83-15). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
36.
Wingersky, M. S. , Barton, M. A., and Lord, F. M. (1982). LOGIST user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
