This paper reviews four areas in which the computer has influenced the theory and practice of achievement testing: a) test scoring and item analysis, b) item sampling, c) item generation, and d) the sequencing of items resulting in various types of adaptive testing. Also, reference is made to the impact of computer-assisted achievement testing upon the development, integration, and evaluation of instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TurnbullW. W., Relevance in testing, Science, 160(28), 1424–1429, June, 1969.
2.
PresseyS. L., A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores—and teaches, School and Society, 23, 373–376, 1926.
3.
DowneyM. T., Ben D. Wood: Education Reformer, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J., 1965.
4.
BakerF. B., “Automation of Test Scoring, Reporting and Analysis,”Educational Measurement, 2nd Ed. edited by ThorndikeR. L., 202–234, American Council on Education, Washington, 1971.
5.
LindquistE. F., The Impact of Machines on Educational Measurement, Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Means, edited by TylerR. W., the 68th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, p. 352, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969.
6.
JacobsP. I., Some implications of testing procedures for auto-instructional programming, Research Bulletin 62–10, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, 1961.
7.
CoulsonJ. E. and CogswellJ. F., Effects of individualized instruction on testing, Journal of Educational Measurement, 2(1): 59–64, 1969.
8.
GlaserR. and KlausD. J., “Proficiency Measurement: Assessing Human Performance,”Psychological Principles in System Development, edited by GagneR., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1963.
9.
BloomB. S., Learning for mastery, Evaluation Comment, 1(2), University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs, Los Angeles, May, 1968.
10.
BrennanR. L., Some statistical problems in the evaluation of self-instructional programs, Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, University microfilms, No. 70-23080, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1970.
11.
CrickJ. E., A critical review of computer-assisted testing, Unpublished special qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1972.
12.
GlaserR. and NitkoA. J., “Measurement in Learning and Instruction,”Educational Measurement, edited by ThorndikeE., National Council of Education, 1971.
13.
BakerF. B., Computer-based instructional management systems: A first look, Review of Educational Research, 41, 51–70, 1971.
14.
BakerF. B. and MartinT. J., FORTAP: A FORTRAN test analysis package, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 259–266, 1969.
15.
WarringtonW. G., An item analysis service for teachers, NCME Measurement in Education, 3(2), 1972.
16.
ShufordE. H., Cybernetic testing, Decision Sciences Laboratory, Electronic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, Hanscom Field Project 2806, Task 2800609, March, 1967.
17.
ShufordE. H.AlbertA. and MassengillH., Admissible probability measurement procedures, Psychometrika, 31(2), 125–145, 1966.
18.
ZinnK. L., “Programming Conversational Use of Computers for Instruction,”Computer-Assisted Instruction—A Book of Readings, edited by AtkinsonR. C. and WilsonH. A..
19.
SimmonsR. F., “Linguistic Analysis of Constructed Student Responses,”Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, edited by HoltzmanW. H., Harper and Row, New York, 1970.
20.
OsburnH. G., Item sampling for achievement testing, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 95–104, 1968.
21.
HivelyW., Specifying ‘Terminal behavior’ in mathematics, Harvard Committee on Programmed Instruction, April, 1962.
22.
NitkoA. J., Some considerations when using a domain-referenced system of achievement tests in instructional situations, paper presented at the AERA convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March, 1970.
23.
HivelyW.PattersonH. L. and PageS. H., Generalizability of performance by job corps trainees on a universe-defined system of achievement tests in elementary mathematical calculations, Minnesota National Laboratory, paper presented at the AERA convention, February, 1968.
24.
FergusonR. L., The development, implementation and evaluation of a computer-assisted branched test for a program of individually prescribed instruction, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969.
25.
FergusonR. L., Computer assistance for individualizing measurement, University of Pittsburgh, Learning, Research and Development Center, March, 1971.
26.
BormuthJ. R., On the Theory of Achievement Test Items, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970.
27.
CrickJ. E., Project for computerized arithmetic practice (CAP), Final Report, Unpublished project report, Harvard, 1971.
28.
FremerJ. and AnastasioE. J., Computer-assisted item writing—I (Spelling Items), Journal of Educational Measurement, 6(2): 69–74, Summer, 1969.
29.
RichardsJ. M.Jr., Can computers write college admissions tests? American College Testing Research Report, No. 15, October, 1966.
30.
UttalW. R.PasichT.RogerM., and HieronymusR., Generative computer-assisted instruction, Communication No. 243, Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan, January, 1969.
31.
GorthW.GraysonA.PopejoyL., and StroudT., A tape-based bank from educational research or instructional testing using longitudinal item sampling, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 175–177, 1969.
32.
WoodsonC. E., Computer program produces test forms with randomly selected and ordered items, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 857–858, 1968.
33.
GorthW.GraysonA.PopejoyL., and StroudT., A tape-based bank for instructional testing using item sampling, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 173–174, 1969.
34.
CronbachL. J.RajaratnamN., and GleserG. C., Theory of Generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory, British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–163, 1963.
35.
ShoemakerD. M. and OsburnH. G., Computer-aided item sampling for achievement testing: A description of a computer program implementating the universe-defined test concept, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 105–172, 1969.
36.
LordF. M., “Some Theory for Tailored Testing,”Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, edited by HoltzmanH., 139–183, Harper and Row, New York, 1970.
37.
LordF. M., The self-scoring flexilevel test, Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(3), 147–151, 1971.
38.
LinnR. L.RockD. A., and ClearyT. A., The development and evaluation of several programmed testing methods, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 129–146, 1969.
39.
LinnR. L.RockD. A., and ClearyT. A., Sequential testing for dichotomous decisions, Educational Testing Service, Research Bulletin, RB-70-31, May, 1970.
40.
GreenG. F.Jr., “Comments on Tailored Testing,”Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, edited by HoltzmanH., 184–197, Harper & Row, New York, 1970.
41.
WoodR., The efficacy of tailored testing, Educational Research, 2(3): 219–222, June, 1969.
42.
GagneR. M. and ParadiseN. E., Abilities and learning sets in knowledge acquisition, Psychological Monographs, 75(14, Whole No. 578), 1961.
43.
StolurowL. M., “Model the Master Teacher or Master the Teaching Model,”Learning and the Educational Process, edited by KrumbottzJ. D., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1965.
44.
BrennanR. L. and StolurowL. M., An empirical decision process for formation evaluation, Research Memorandum No. 4, ONR Contract No. N00014-67-A-0298-0032, Harvard Computer-Aided Instruction Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April, 1971.
