Methods of optimal test assembly have served as the foundation for the development of methods for assembling adaptive tests. A model and a heuristic that facilitate the assembly of adaptive tests have been developed (Stocking & Swanson, 1993; Swanson & Stocking, 1993). Similar methods can be used to assemble item banks for adaptive testing in which optimal design seeks to simultaneously reduce item exposure to enhance item security and to increase exposure to enhance item efficiency. In this study, optimal design methods were applied to the item bank design of adaptive testing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, T. (1989, March). An altemative method-ologyfor creating parallel testforms using the IRT information function. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of National Council for Measure-ment in Education, San Francisco.
2.
Adema, J. J. (1990). Models and algorithms for the construction of achievement tests. The Haag, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Bibliotheek.
3.
Boekkooi-Timminga, E. (1989). Models for comput-erized test construction. The Haag, The Nether-lands: Academisch Boeken Centrum.
4.
Chang, H. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psycho-logical Measurement, 20, 213-229.
5.
Davey, T. , & Parshall, C. G. (1995, April). New algo-rithmsfor item selection and exposure control with computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
6.
Eignor, D. R., Way, W. D., Stocking, M. L., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (Research Report 93-56). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7.
Green, B. F. , Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Joumal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360.
8.
Lord, F. M. (1970). Some test theory for tailored testing. In W. H. Holtzman (Ed.), Computer-assisted instruction, testing, and guidance. New York: Harper and Row.
9.
Lord, F. M. (1977). A broad-range tailored test of ver-bal ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 95-100.
10.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
McBride, J. R. , & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military set-ting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Mislevy, R. J. (1984). Estimating latent distributions. Psychometrika, 49, 359-381.
13.
Stocking, M. L. (1987). Two simulated feasibility studies in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36, 263-277.
14.
Stocking, M. L. (1993). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (Re-search Report 93-2). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15.
Stocking, M. L. , & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
16.
Swanson, L. , & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151-166.
17.
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: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
18.
van der Linden, W. J. (1987). Automated test con-struction using minimax programming. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), IRT-based test construc-tion. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Department of Education.
19.
Wainer, H. , Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primerHillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Weiss, D. J. (Ed.). (1978). Proceedings of the 1977 computerized adaptive testing conference. Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
21.
Wingersky, M. S. (1983). LOGIST: A program for computing maximum likelihood procedures for logistic test models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory. Vancouver, Canada: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
