Previous research has shown self-adapted testing to be a promising alternative to computerized adaptive testing. The present study looked at the importance of item feedback in self-adapted testing. Computerized adaptive tests and self-adapted tests were compared under both feedback and no-feedback conditions. The self-adapted tests yielded higher test performance and lower anxiety than the computerized adaptive tests regardless of feedback condition. These findings indicate that item feedback is not necessary for the score differences between self-adapted testing and computerized adaptive testing to be ralized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Assessment Systems . (1984). User's manual for the Micro CAT testing system. St. Paul, MN: Author.
2.
Beeson, R. O. (1973). Immediate knowledge of results and test performance. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 224-226.
3.
Betz, N. E. (1977). Effects of immediate knowledge of results and adaptive testing on ability test performance. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 259-266.
4.
Betz, N. E. , & Weiss, D. J. (1976). Psychological effects of immediate knowledge of results and adaptive ability testing (Research Report 76-4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.
5.
Bierbaum, W. B. (1969). Immediate knowledge of performance on multiple choice tests. Journal of Programmed Instruction, 3, 19-23.
6.
Gialluca, K. A. , & Weiss, D. J. (1980). Effects of immediate knowledge of results on achievement test performance and test dimensionality (Research Report 80-1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.
7.
Gilmer, J. S. (1979, April). The effects of immediate feedback versus traditional no-feedback in a testing situation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
8.
Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 147-200). New York: Macmillan.
9.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.
10.
Holst, P. M. , O'Donnell, A. M., & Rocklin, T. R. (1992, April). Effects offeedback during self-adapted testing on estimates of ability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
11.
Johnson, P. L. , Roos, L. L., Wise, S. L. & Plake, B. S. (1991). Correlates of examinee item choice behavior in self-adapted testing. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 4, 25-29.
12.
Moris, L. W. , & Fulner, R. S. (1976). Test anxiety (worry and emotionality) changes during academic testing as a function of feedback and test importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 817-824.
13.
Plake, B. S. , & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the mathematics anxiety rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 551-557.
14.
Prestwood, J. S. , & Weiss, D. J. (1978). The effects of knowledge of results and test difficulty on ability test performance and psychological reactions to testing (Research Report 78-2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.
15.
Rocklin, T. , & O'Donnell, A. M. (1987). Self-adapted testing: A performance-improving variant of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 315-319.
16.
Rocklin, T. , & Thompson, J. M. (1985). Interactive effects of test anxiety, test difficulty, and feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 368-372.
17.
Rocklin, T. R. , & O'Donnell, A. M. (1991, April). An empirical conWarison of self adapted and maximum information item selection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
18.
Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
19.
Spielberger, C. D. , Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
20.
Strang, H. R. , & Rust, J. O. (1973). The effects of immediate knowledge of results and task definition on multiple-choice answering. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 77-80.
21.
Vispoel, W. P. , & Cofftnan, D. D. (1994). Computerized-adaptive and self-adapted music-listening tests: Psychometric features and motivational benefits. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 25-51.
22.
Vispoel, W. P. , Rocklin, T. R., & Wang, T. (1994). Individual differences and test administration procedures: A comparison of fixed-item, computerized-adaptive, and self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 53-79.
23.
Vispoel, W. P. , Wang, T., de laTorre, R., Bleiler, T., & Dings, J. (1992, April). How review options and administration modes influence scores on computerized vocabulary tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
24.
Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 15-20.
25.
Wise, S. L. (1992, June). Self-adapted testing: Promise and implications. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Tlwente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
26.
Wise, S. L. (1994). Understanding self-adapted testing: The perceived control hypothesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 15-24.
27.
Wise, S. L. , Johnson, P. L., Plake, B. S., & Nebelsick-Gullett, L. (1990, April). Providing examinees the opportunity to review items, skip items and change item choices on computerized achievement tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Boston.
28.
Wise, S. L.Plake, B. S. , Eastman, L. A., Boettcher, L L., & Lukin, M. E. (1986). The effects of item feedback and examinee control on test performance and anxiety in a computer-administered test. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 21-29.
29.
Wise, S. L. , Plake, B. S., Johnson, P. L., & Roos, L. L. (1992). A comparison of self-adapted and computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 329-339.
30.
Wise, S. L. , Plake, B. S., Pozehl, B. J., Barnes, L. L., & Lukin, M. E. (1989). Providing item feedback in computer-based tests: Effects of initial success and failure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 479-486.
31.
Wise, S. L. , Roos, L. L., Plake, B. S., & Nebelsick-Gullett, L. (1994). The relationship between examinee anxiety and preference for self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 81-91.
32.
Wise, S. L , & Wise, L. A. (1987). Comparison of computer-administered and paper-administered achievement tests with elementary school children. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 15-20.
33.
Yen, W. M. (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245-262.
