Various school systems are developing proficiency tests which are conceptualized as representing a variety of skills with one or more items per skill. This paper discusses how certain recent technical advances might be extended to examine these tests. In contrast to previous analyses, errors at the item level are included; and it is shown that inclusion of these errors implies that a substantially longer test might be needed. One approach to this problem is described, and directions for future research are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, T.W.On estimation of parameters in latent structure analysis. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 1-10.
2.
Brownless, V.T., & Keats, J.A.A retest method of studying partial knowledge and other factors influencing item response. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 67-73.
3.
Fhanér, S.Item sampling and decision making in achievement testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1974, 27, 172-175.
4.
Formann, A.K.A note on parameter estimation for Lazarsfeld's latent class analysis. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 123-126.
5.
Gibbons, J., Olkin, I., & Sobel, M.Selecting and ordering populations: A new statistical methodology. New York: John Wiley, 1977.
6.
Green, B.F.A general solution for the latent class model of latent structure analysis . Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 151-166.
7.
Goodman, L.A.Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 1974, 61, 215-231.
Harris, C.W.Some technical characteristics of mastery tests. In C. W. Harris, M. C. Alkin, & W. J. Popham (Eds.), Problems in criterion-referenced measurement (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 3. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1974.
10.
Harris, C.W., Pearlman, A.P., & Wilcox, R.R.Achievement test items—Methods of study (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 6. Los Angeles : University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1977.
Lord. F.M.Optimal number of choices per item—a comparison of four approaches . Journal of Educational Measurement, 1977 , 14, 33-38.
17.
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R.Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley, 1968.
18.
Macready, G.B., & Dayton, C.M.The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1977, 2, 99-120.
19.
Marks, E., & Noll, G.A.Procedures and criteria for evaluating reading and listening comprehension tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1967, 27, 335-348.
20.
Novick, M.R., & Lewis, C.Prescribing test length for criterion-referenced measurement. In C. W. Harris, M. C. Alkin , & W. J. Popham (Eds.), Problems in criterion-referenced measurement (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 3. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1974.
21.
Skibinsky, M.The maximum probability of an interval when the mean and variance are known . Sankhya, 1977, Series A, 39, 144-159.
22.
Subkoviak, M.J.Empirical investigation of procedures for estimating reliability for mastery tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 111-116.
23.
Wilcox, R.R.Estimating the likelihood of a false-positive or false-negative decision with a mastery test: An empirical Bayes approach. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1977, 2, 289-307.
24.
Wilcox, R.R.Applying ranking and selection techniques to determine the length of a mastery test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1979, 31, 13-22. (a)
25.
Wilcox, R.R.Achievement tests and latent structure models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1979, 32, 61-71. (b)
26.
Wilcox, R.R.On false-positive and false-negative decisions with a mastery test. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1979, 4, 59-73. (c)
