In the present study, a procedure that has been used to select dichotomous items in computerized adaptive testing was applied to polytomous items. This procedure was designed to select the item with maximum weighted information. In a simulation study, the item information function was integrated over a fixed interval of ability values and the item with the maximum area was selected. This maximum interval information item selection procedure was compared to a maximum point information item selection procedure. Substantial differences between the two item selection procedures were not found when computerized adaptive tests were evaluated on bias and the root mean square of the ability estimate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akkermans, W. , & Muraki, E. (1997). Item information and discrimination functions for trinary PCM items. Psychometrika, 62, 569-578.
2.
Baek, S.-G. (1997). Computerized adaptive testing using the partial credit model for attitude measurement. In M. Wilson, G. Engelhard Jr., & K. Draney (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 4). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3.
Berger, M. P. F. , & Veerkamp, W. J. J. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 203-226.
4.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models. In F. M. Lord, & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 395-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Chang, H.-H. , & Mazzeo, J. (1994). The unique correspondence of the item response function and item category response functions in polytomously scored item response models. Psychometrika, 59, 391-404.
6.
Chang, H.-H. , & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
7.
Donoghue, J. R. (1994). An empirical examination of the IRT information function of polytomously scored reading items under the generalized partial credit model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 295-311.
8.
Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.
9.
Hambleton, R. K. , & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof.
10.
Hemker, B. T. , Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W., & Junker, B. W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62, 331-347.
11.
Huynh, H. (1994). On equivalence between a partial credit item and a set of independent Rasch binary items. Psychometrika, 59, 111-119.
12.
Huynh, H. (1996). Decomposition of a Rasch partial credit item into independent binary and indecomposable trinary items. Psychometrika, 61, 31-39.
13.
Kingsbury, G. G. , & Zara, A. R. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 241-261.
14.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
15.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1995). Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 91-100.
16.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
17.
Muraki, E. (1993). Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 351-363.
18.
Priestley, H. A. (1997). Introduction to integration. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
19.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
20.
Stocking, M. L. , & Lewis, C. (1998). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 57-75.
21.
Sympson, J. B. , & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973-977). San Diego, CA.
22.
Tang, L. T. (1996, April). A comparison of the traditional maximum information method and the global information method in CAT item selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCME, New York.
23.
Thissen, D. , & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567-577.
24.
Van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
25.
Verhelst, N. D. , Glas, C. W., & Verstralen, H. H. F. M. (1995). OPLM: Computer program and manual. Arnhem, the Netherlands: CITO.
26.
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-450.
27.
Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.
