Showing 1 - 2 of 2 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Thai Q. Ong, Dena A. Pastor

Applied Psychological Measurement: Volume 46, issue 2, page(s) 571-588

 

This study evaluates the degree to which position effects on two separate low-stakes tests administered to two different samples were moderated by different item (item length, number of response options, mental taxation, and graphic) and examinee (effort, change in effort, and gender) variables. Items exhibited significant negative linear position effects on both tests, with the magnitude of the position effects varying from item to item.

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.