02174nas a2200301 4500008004100000020001400041245010200055210006900157250001500226300001200241490000700253520109000260653001501350653001501365653002101380653004801401653002401449653002801473653006201501653005701563653001101620653002701631653004601658100001701704700001201721700001401733856012501747 2008 eng d a1138-741600aRotating item banks versus restriction of maximum exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing0 aRotating item banks versus restriction of maximum exposure rates a2008/11/08 a618-6250 v113 a
If examinees were to know, beforehand, part of the content of a computerized adaptive test, their estimated trait levels would then have a marked positive bias. One of the strategies to avoid this consists of dividing a large item bank into several sub-banks and rotating the sub-bank employed (Ariel, Veldkamp & van der Linden, 2004). This strategy permits substantial improvements in exposure control at little cost to measurement accuracy, However, we do not know whether this option provides better results than using the master bank with greater restriction in the maximum exposure rates (Sympson & Hetter, 1985). In order to investigate this issue, we worked with several simulated banks of 2100 items, comparing them, for RMSE and overlap rate, with the same banks divided in two, three... up to seven sub-banks. By means of extensive manipulation of the maximum exposure rate in each bank, we found that the option of rotating banks slightly outperformed the option of restricting maximum exposure rate of the master bank by means of the Sympson-Hetter method.
10a*Character10a*Databases10a*Software Design10aAptitude Tests/*statistics & numerical data10aBias (Epidemiology)10aComputing Methodologies10aDiagnosis, Computer-Assisted/*statistics & numerical data10aEducational Measurement/*statistics & numerical data10aHumans10aMathematical Computing10aPsychometrics/statistics & numerical data1 aBarrada, J R1 aOlea, J1 aAbad, F J uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/rotating-item-banks-versus-restriction-maximum-exposure-rates-computerized-adaptive-testing02212nas a2200229 4500008004100000020004600041245008500087210006900172260004500241300001000286490000600296520140300302653003401705653002301739653002601762653001701788653002601805100001701831700001201848700001501860856010701875 2007 eng d a1614-1881 (Print); 1614-2241 (Electronic)00aMethods for restricting maximum exposure rate in computerized adaptative testing0 aMethods for restricting maximum exposure rate in computerized ad bHogrefe & Huber Publishers GmbH: Germany a14-230 v33 aThe Sympson-Hetter (1985) method provides a means of controlling maximum exposure rate of items in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Through a series of simulations, control parameters are set that mark the probability of administration of an item on being selected. This method presents two main problems: it requires a long computation time for calculating the parameters and the maximum exposure rate is slightly above the fixed limit. Van der Linden (2003) presented two alternatives which appear to solve both of the problems. The impact of these methods in the measurement accuracy has not been tested yet. We show how these methods over-restrict the exposure of some highly discriminating items and, thus, the accuracy is decreased. It also shown that, when the desired maximum exposure rate is near the minimum possible value, these methods offer an empirical maximum exposure rate clearly above the goal. A new method, based on the initial estimation of the probability of administration and the probability of selection of the items with the restricted method (Revuelta & Ponsoda, 1998), is presented in this paper. It can be used with the Sympson-Hetter method and with the two van der Linden's methods. This option, when used with Sympson-Hetter, speeds the convergence of the control parameters without decreasing the accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)10acomputerized adaptive testing10aitem bank security10aitem exposure control10aoverlap rate10aSympson-Hetter method1 aBarrada, J R1 aOlea, J1 aPonsoda, V uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/methods-restricting-maximum-exposure-rate-computerized-adaptative-testing03119nas a2200277 4500008004100000020002200041245010900063210006900172250001500241260000800256300001200264490000700276520221700283653002902500653002002529653002502549653002102574653001502595653002802610653001102638653002502649100001702674700001502691700001202706856012302718 2006 eng d a0214-9915 (Print)00aMaximum information stratification method for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing0 aMaximum information stratification method for controlling item e a2007/02/14 cFeb a156-1590 v183 aThe proposal for increasing the security in Computerized Adaptive Tests that has received most attention in recent years is the a-stratified method (AS - Chang and Ying, 1999): at the beginning of the test only items with low discrimination parameters (a) can be administered, with the values of the a parameters increasing as the test goes on. With this method, distribution of the exposure rates of the items is less skewed, while efficiency is maintained in trait-level estimation. The pseudo-guessing parameter (c), present in the three-parameter logistic model, is considered irrelevant, and is not used in the AS method. The Maximum Information Stratified (MIS) model incorporates the c parameter in the stratification of the bank and in the item-selection rule, improving accuracy by comparison with the AS, for item banks with a and b parameters correlated and uncorrelated. For both kinds of banks, the blocking b methods (Chang, Qian and Ying, 2001) improve the security of the item bank.Método de estratificación por máxima información para el control de la exposición en tests adaptativos informatizados. La propuesta para aumentar la seguridad en los tests adaptativos informatizados que ha recibido más atención en los últimos años ha sido el método a-estratificado (AE - Chang y Ying, 1999): en los momentos iniciales del test sólo pueden administrarse ítems con bajos parámetros de discriminación (a), incrementándose los valores del parámetro a admisibles según avanza el test. Con este método la distribución de las tasas de exposición de los ítems es más equilibrada, manteniendo una adecuada precisión en la medida. El parámetro de pseudoadivinación (c), presente en el modelo logístico de tres parámetros, se supone irrelevante y no se incorpora en el AE. El método de Estratificación por Máxima Información (EMI) incorpora el parámetro c a la estratificación del banco y a la regla de selección de ítems, mejorando la precisión en comparación con AE, tanto para bancos donde los parámetros a y b correlacionan como para bancos donde no. Para ambos tipos de bancos, los métodos de bloqueo de b (Chang, Qian y Ying, 2001) mejoran la seguridad del banco.10a*Artificial Intelligence10a*Microcomputers10a*Psychological Tests10a*Software Design10aAlgorithms10aChi-Square Distribution10aHumans10aLikelihood Functions1 aBarrada, J R1 aMazuela, P1 aOlea, J uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/maximum-information-stratification-method-controlling-item-exposure-computerized-adaptive01668nas 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-study00692nas a2200169 4500008004100000020001400041245015800055210006900213300001200282490000600294653003400300100001700334700001500351700001200366700001400378856013000392 2000 eng d a1575-910500aLos tests adaptativos informatizados en la frontera del siglo XXI: Una revisión [Computerized adaptive tests at the turn of the 21st century: A review]0 aLos tests adaptativos informatizados en la frontera del siglo XX a183-2160 v210acomputerized adaptive testing1 aHontangas, P1 aPonsoda, V1 aOlea, J1 aAbad, F J uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/los-tests-adaptativos-informatizados-en-la-frontera-del-siglo-xxi-una-revisi%C3%B3n-computerized