Showing 1 - 2 of 2 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Z. Cui, C. Liu, Y. He, H. Chen

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 582-594

 

This article proposes and evaluates a new method that implements computerized adaptive testing (CAT) without any restriction on item review. In particular, it evaluates the new method in terms of the accuracy on ability estimates and the robustness against test‐manipulation strategies. This study shows that the newly proposed method is promising in a win‐win situation: examinees have full freedom to review and change answers, and the impacts of test‐manipulation strategies are undermined.

Posted: | M. C. Edwards, A. Slagle, J. D. Rubright, R. J. Wirth

Qual Life Res 27, 1711–1720 (2018)

 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of its regulatory mission, is charged with determining whether a clinical outcome assessment (COA) is “fit for purpose” when used in clinical trials to support drug approval and product labeling. This paper provides a review (and some commentary) on the current state of affairs in COA development/evaluation/use with a focus on one aspect: How do you know you are measuring the right thing? In the psychometric literature, this concept is referred to broadly as validity and has itself evolved over many years of research and application.