RESEARCH LIBRARY

Teaching and Learning in Medicine: Volume 33 - Issue 4 - p 366-381

The purpose of this analysis is to describe these sources of evidence that can be used to evaluate the quality of generated items. The important role of medical expertise in the development and evaluation of the generated items is highlighted as a crucial requirement for producing validation evidence.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

This article aims to answer the question: when the assumption that examinees may apply themselves fully yet still respond incorrectly is violated, what are the consequences of using the modified model proposed by Lewis and his colleagues? 

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 216-229

This article presents two generalizability-theory–based analyses of the proportion of the item variance that contributes to error in the cut score. For one approach, variance components are estimated on the probability (or proportion-correct) scale of the Angoff judgments, and for the other, the judgments are transferred to the theta scale of an item response theory model before estimating the variance components.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39: 30-36

This article proposes the conscious weight method and subconscious weight method to bring more objectivity to the standard setting process. To do this, these methods quantify the relative harm of the negative consequences of false positive and false negative misclassification.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39: 37-44

This article presents the results of an experiment in which content experts were randomly assigned to one of two response probability conditions: .67 and .80. If the standard-setting judgments collected with the bookmark procedure are internally consistent, both conditions should produce highly similar cut scores.

Psychometrika 83, 847–857 (2018)

Utilizing algorithms to generate items in educational and psychological testing is an active area of research for obvious reasons: Test items are predominantly written by humans, in most cases by content experts who represent a limited and potentially costly resource. Using algorithms instead has the appeal to provide an unlimited resource for this crucial part of assessment development.