A Comparison of Item Selection Rules at the Early Stages of Computerized Adaptive Testing

Abstract

The effects of five item selection rules—Fisher information (FI), Fisher interval information (FII), Fisher information with a posterior distribution (FIP), Kullback-Leibler information (KL), and Kullback-Leibler information with a posterior distribution (KLP)—were compared with respect to the efficiency and precision of trait (Θ) estimation at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing (CAT). FII, FIP, KL, and KLP performed marginally better than FI at the early stages of CAT for Θ= -3 and -2. For tests longer than 10 items,there appeared to be no precision advantage for any of the selection rules.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chang, H.-H. , & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213–229.

Fan, M. , & Hsu, Y. (1996, April). Utility of Fisher information, global information and different starting abilities in mini CAT. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.

Hambleton, R. K. , & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Nijhoff.

Hambleton, R. K. , Swaminathan, H. , & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Johnson, E. G. , & Carlson, J. E. (1994). The NAEP 1992 technical report. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Samejima, F. (1977). A use of the information function in tailored testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 233–247.

van der Linden, W. J. (1995, June). Bayesian item selection in adaptive testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Minneapolis MN.

Veerkamp, W. J. J. , & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 203–226.

10.

Wainer, H. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

Wang, T. , & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estimation methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 109–135.