01668nas a2200229   4500008004100000245005500041210005300096300000800149490000700157520102900164653002101193653001201214653003001226653001801256653000901274100001701283700001201300700001501312700001601327700001401343856008101357       2004                        eng d00aAssisted self-adapted testing: A comparative study0 aAssisted selfadapted testing A comparative study  a2-90 v203 aA new type of self-adapted test (S-AT), called Assisted Self-Adapted Test (AS-AT), is presented. It differs from an ordinary S-AT in that prior to selecting the difficulty category, the computer advises examinees on their best difficulty category choice, based on their previous performance. Three tests (computerized adaptive test, AS-AT, and S-AT) were compared regarding both their psychometric (precision and efficiency) and psychological (anxiety) characteristics. Tests were applied in an actual assessment situation, in which test scores determined 20% of term grades. A sample of 173 high school students participated. Neither differences in posttest anxiety nor ability were obtained. Concerning precision, AS-AT was as precise as CAT, and both revealed more precision than S-AT. It was concluded that AS-AT acted as a CAT concerning precision. Some hints, but not conclusive support, of the psychological similarity between AS-AT and S-AT was also found. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA ) (journal abstract)10aAdaptive Testing10aAnxiety10aComputer Assisted Testing10aPsychometrics10aTest1 aHontangas, P1 aOlea, J1 aPonsoda, V1 aRevuelta, J1 aWise, S L  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/assisted-self-adapted-testing-comparative-study01761nas a2200313   4500008004100000245007700041210006900118300001200187490000700199520083400206653002101040653001501061653001701076653001601093653003001109653001701139653001501156653002501171653002001196653001501216653002501231653001801256653000901274100001801283700001201301700001601313700001601329856010201345       2003                        eng d00aComputerized adaptive rating scales for measuring managerial performance0 aComputerized adaptive rating scales for measuring managerial per  a237-2460 v113 aComputerized adaptive rating scales (CARS) had been developed to measure contextual or citizenship performance. This rating format used a paired-comparison protocol, presenting pairs of behavioral statements scaled according to effectiveness levels, and an iterative item response theory algorithm to obtain estimates of ratees' citizenship performance (W. C. Borman et al, 2001). In the present research, we developed CARS to measure the entire managerial performance domain, including task and citizenship performance, thus addressing a major limitation of the earlier CARS. The paper describes this development effort, including an adjustment to the algorithm that reduces substantially the number of item pairs required to obtain almost as much precision in the performance estimates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aAlgorithms10aAssociations10aCitizenship10aComputer Assisted Testing10aConstruction10aContextual10aItem Response Theory10aJob Performance10aManagement10aManagement Personnel10aRating Scales10aTest1 aSchneider, RJ1 aGoff, M1 aAnderson, S1 aBorman, W C  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/computerized-adaptive-rating-scales-measuring-managerial-performance02013nas a2200205   4500008004100000245008200041210006900123300001200192490000700204520132300211653002101534653001501555653003001570653001101600653000901611653004701620100001901667700001301686856010801699       2002                        eng d00aHypergeometric family and item overlap rates in computerized adaptive testing0 aHypergeometric family and item overlap rates in computerized ada  a387-3980 v673 aA computerized adaptive test (CAT) is usually administered to small groups of examinees at frequent time intervals. It is often the case that examinees who take the test earlier share information with examinees who will take the test later, thus increasing the risk that many items may become known. Item overlap rate for a group of examinees refers to the number of overlapping items encountered by these examinees divided by the test length. For a specific item pool, different item selection algorithms may yield different item overlap rates. An important issue in designing a good CAT item selection algorithm is to keep item overlap rate below a preset level. In doing so, it is important to investigate what the lowest rate could be for all possible item selection algorithms. In this paper we rigorously prove that if every item had an equal possibility to be selected from the pool in a fixed-length CAT, the number of overlapping item among any α randomly sampled examinees follows the hypergeometric distribution family for α ≥ 1. Thus, the expected values of the number of overlapping items among any randomly sampled α examinee can be calculated precisely. These values may serve as benchmarks in controlling item overlap rates for fixed-length adaptive tests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aAlgorithms10aComputer Assisted Testing10aTaking10aTest10aTime On Task computerized adaptive testing1 aChang, Hua-Hua1 aZhang, J  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/hypergeometric-family-and-item-overlap-rates-computerized-adaptive-testing01617nas a2200193   4500008004100000245008600041210006900127300001200196490000700208520094500215653002101160653003001181653004101211653000901252653001701261100001601278700001701294856011201311       2001                        eng d00aDifferences between self-adapted and computerized adaptive tests: A meta-analysis0 aDifferences between selfadapted and computerized adaptive tests   a235-2470 v383 aSelf-adapted testing has been described as a variation of computerized adaptive testing that reduces test anxiety and thereby enhances test performance. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of these proposed effects of self-adapted tests (SATs); meta-analysis procedures were used to estimate differences between SATs and computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in proficiency estimates and post-test anxiety levels across studies in which these two types of tests have been compared. After controlling for measurement error the results showed that SATs yielded proficiency estimates that were 0.12 standard deviation units higher and post-test anxiety levels that were 0.19 standard deviation units lower than those yielded by CATs. The authors speculate about possible reasons for these differences and discuss advantages and disadvantages of using SATs in operational settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aScores computerized adaptive testing10aTest10aTest Anxiety1 aPitkin, A K1 aVispoel, W P  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/differences-between-self-adapted-and-computerized-adaptive-tests-meta-analysis02315nas a2200205   4500008004100000245012100041210006900162300000800231490000700239520159200246653002101838653003001859653002201889653001801911653001601929653000901945653001801954100001401972856012301986       2000                        eng d00aAn examination of the reliability and validity of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales0 aexamination of the reliability and validity of performance ratin  a5700 v613 aThis study compared the psychometric properties of performance ratings made using recently-developed computerized adaptive rating scales (CARS) to the psyc hometric properties of ratings made using more traditional paper-and-pencil rati ng formats, i.e., behaviorally-anchored and graphic rating scales. Specifically, the reliability, validity and accuracy of the performance ratings from each for mat were examined. One hundred twelve participants viewed six 5-minute videotape s of office situations and rated the performance of a target person in each vide otape on three contextual performance dimensions-Personal Support, Organizationa l Support, and Conscientious Initiative-using CARS and either behaviorally-ancho red or graphic rating scales. Performance rating properties were measured using Shrout and Fleiss's intraclass correlation (2, 1), Borman's differential accurac y measure, and Cronbach's accuracy components as indexes of rating reliability, validity, and accuracy, respectively. Results found that performance ratings mad e using the CARS were significantly more reliable and valid than performance rat ings made using either of the other formats. Additionally, CARS yielded more acc urate performance ratings than the paper-and-pencil formats. The nature of the C ARS system (i.e., its adaptive nature and scaling methodology) and its paired co mparison judgment task are offered as possible reasons for the differences found in the psychometric properties of the performance ratings made using the variou s rating formats. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aPerformance Tests10aRating Scales10aReliability10aTest10aTest Validity1 aBuck, D E  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/examination-reliability-and-validity-performance-ratings-made-using-computerized-adaptive