This paper focuses on the potential contributions of optimal test design models to practical test assembly issues. These issues result from limitations in the models or the technology required for their implementation and limitations inherent in the test assembly process as it is currently configured, regardless of whether tests are assembled by computerized assembly algorithms or by experienced test specialists. Explication of these issues helps identify future challenges for researchers who may refine and enhance the models and for practitioners who may integrate the models into their operational procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adema, J. J. , Boekkooi-Timminga, E., & van der Lin-den, W. J. (1991). Achievement test construction using 0-1 linear programming. European Journal of Operations Research, 55, 103-111.
2.
Adema, J. J. , & van der Linden, W. J. (1989). Al-gorithms for computerized test construction using classical item parameters. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 279-290.
3.
Armstrong, R. D. , Jones, D. H., & Kunce, C. S. (1998). IRT test assembly using network-flow programming. Applied Psychological Measure-ment, 22, 237-247.
4.
Armstrong, R. D. , Jones, D. H., & Wang, Z. (1994). Automated parallel test construction using classi-cal test theory. Journal of Educational Statistics, 19, 73-90.
5.
Berger, M. P. F. (1998). Optimal design of tests with dichotomous and polytomous items. Applied Psy-chological Measurement, 22, 248-258.
6.
Luecht, R. M. (1998). Computer-assisted test assem-bly using optimization heuristics. Applied Psy-chological Measurement, 22, 224-236.
7.
Mills, C. N. , & Stocking, M. L. (1996). Practical is-sues in large-scale computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 287-304.
8.
Plumer, G. (1997). A review of the LSATusing litera-ture on legal reasoning (LSAC Research Report). Newtown PA: Law School Admission Council.
9.
Sanders, P. F. , & Verschoor, A. J. (1998). Parallel test construction using classical item parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 212-223.
10.
Stocking, M. L. , & Swanson, L., (1998). Optimal design of item banks for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 271-279.
11.
Stocking, M. L. , Swanson, L., & Pearlman, M. (1993). Application of an automated item selec-tion method to real data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 167-176.
12.
Swanson, L. , & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151-166.
13.
Theunissen, T. J. J. M. (1985). Binary programming and test design. Psychometrika, 50, 411-420.
14.
Theunissen, T. J. J. M. (1986). Some applications of optimization algorithms in test design and adap-tive testing. Applied Psychological Measure-ment, 10, 381-389.
15.
Timminga, E.Solving infeasibility problems in com-puterized test assembly . Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 280-291.
16.
van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Optimal assembly of educational and psychological tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 195-211.
17.
van der Linden, W. J. , & Boekkooi-Timminga, E. (1988). A zero-one programming approach to Gulliksen's matched random subtests method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 201-209.
18.
van der Linden, W. J. , & Boekkooi-Timminga, E. (1989). A maximin model for test design with practical constraints. Psychometrika, 54, 237-248.
19.
van der Linden, W. J. , & Luecht, R. M. (1995). An optimization model for test assembly to match observed-score distributions. In G. Engelhard & M. Wilson (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 3, pp. 405-418). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
20.
van der Linden, W. J. , & Reese, L. M. (1998). A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259-270.
