A generative approach to psychometric model ing consists of encoding information about the cognitive processes and structures that underlie test performance into an item-generation algorithm in such a way that the generated items have known psychometric parameters. An important by-product of the approach is that the knowledge about the response process is tested every time a test is ad ministered. Validation thus becomes an ongoing process rather than an occasional event. This ap proach is illustrated through an analysis of hidden- figure items, and is shown to be feasible.
Adams, O.S., Fitts, P.M., Rappaport, M., & Weinstein, M. (1954). Relations among some measures of pattern discriminability. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 48, 81-88.
2.
Attneave, F. (1955). Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns . American Journal of Psychology, 68, 209-222.
Bejar, I.I. (1988). A sentence-based automated approach to the assessment of writing: A feasibility study. Machine-Mediated Learning , 2, 321-332.
5.
Bejar, I.I. (1990a). A generative analysis of a threedimensional spatial task. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 237-245.
6.
Bejar, I.I. (1990b). A generative approach to psychological and educational measurement. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, & I. I. Bejar, (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests . Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Bejar, I.I., Chaffin, R., & Embretson, S. (1991). Cognitive and psychometric analysis of analogical problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag .
8.
Bejar, I.I., & Yocom, P. (1986). A generative approach to the development of hidden-figure items (Report No. RR-86-20-ONR). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9.
Bormuth, J.R. (1970). On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Brown, J.S., & Burton, R.R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
11.
Burton, R.R. (1982). Diagnosing bugs in simple procedural skills. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown, (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Campbell, A.C. (1961). Some determinants of the difficulty of non-verbal classification items. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 21, 899-913.
13.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81-105.
14.
Carroll, J.B. (1980). Measurement of abilities constructs. In Construct validity in psychological measurement: Proceedings of a colloquium on theory and application in education and employment. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15.
Chipman, S. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269-301.
16.
Chomsky, N. (1965.) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
17.
Davies, A.D.M., & Davies, M.G. (1965). The difficulty and graded scoring of Elithorn's perceptual maze test. British Journal of Psychology, 14, 295-302.
Egan, D.E. (1979). Testing based on understanding: Implications from studies of spatial ability. Intelligence, 3, 1-15.
20.
Ekstrom, R., French, J., & Harman, H. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21.
Elithorn, A., Jones, D., Kerr, M., & Lee, D. (1964). The effects of the variation of two physical parameters on empirical difficulty in a perceptual maze test. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 31-37.
Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1985). An alternate definition of the ETS delta scale of item difficulty (Technical Rep. 85-86). Princeton NJ : Educational Testing Service.
24.
Linn, R.L., & Harnisch, D.L. (1981). Interaction between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109-118.
25.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Mayhew, J., & Frisby, J. (1984). Computer vision. In T. O'Shea and M. Eisenstadt (Eds.), Artificial intelligence: Tools, techniques, and applications . New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Messick, S. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological Bulletin,89, 575-588.
28.
Pellegrino, J.W. (1988). Mental models and mental tests. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale NJ : Erlbaum.
29.
Pinker, S. (1984). Visual cognition: An introduction. In S. Pinker (Ed.), Visual cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
30.
Roid, G.H., & Haladyna, T.M. (1982). A technology for item writing . New York: Academic Press.
31.
Ronse, C., & Devijver, P.A. (1984). Connected components in binary images: The detection problem. New York: Wiley.
32.
Royer, F.L. (1981). Detecting symmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1186-1210.
33.
Soltz, D.F., & Wertheimer, M. (1959). Retention of "good" and "bad" figures. American Journal of Psychology, 72, 450-452.
34.
Stocking, M. (1988). Some considerations in maintaining adaptive test item pools (Report No. RR-83-33-ONR). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35.
Tate, M.W. (1948). Individual differences in speed of response in mental test materials of varying degrees of difficulty. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 353-374.
36.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1986). Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster.
37.
Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Oltman, P.K. (1979). Psychological differentiation: Current status . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1127-1145.
38.
Zimmerman, W.S. (1954). The influence of item complexity upon the factor composition of a spatial visualization test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14, 106-119.
