e-ISSN: 2618-6586 Open Access · Peer-Reviewed JETOL on DergiPark
JETOL — Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning
Publisher
Gürhan Durak
Publication Model
Periodical (January – May – September)
Status
Open for Submissions

The effect of item pool and selection algorithms on computerized classification testing (CCT) performance

Research Article

Download PDF DOI: 10.31681/jetol.1099580
Published in
Volume 5, Issue 3 (2022)
Pages
573–584
Publication Date
September 30, 2022
Submission Date
April 6, 2022
Acceptance Date
June 30, 2022
Subjects
Studies on Education

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effect of item pool and selection algorithms on computerized classification testing (CCT) performance in terms of some classification evaluation metrics. For this purpose, 1000 examinees’ response patterns using the R package were generated and eight item pools with 150, 300, 450, and 600 items having different distributions were formed. A total of 100 iterations were performed for each research condition. The results indicated that average classification accuracy (ACA) was partially lower, but average test length (ATL) was higher in item pools having a broad distribution. It was determined that the observed differences were more apparent in the item pool with 150 items, and that item selection methods gave similar results in terms of ACA and ATL. The Sympson-Hetter method indicated advantages in terms of test efficiency, while the item eligibility method offered an improvement in terms of item exposure control. The modified multinomial model, on the other hand, was more effective in terms of content balancing.

Keywords

  • Computerized classification testing
  • Content balancing
  • Item exposure control
  • Classification accuracy
  • Item pool characteristics
References (33)
  1. Bao, Y., Shen, Y., Wang, S., & Bradshaw, L. (2020). Flexible computerized adaptive tests to detect misconceptions and estimate ability simultaneously. Applied Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621620965730
  2. Dooley, K. (2002). Simulation research methods. In J. Baum (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 829-848). Blackwell.
  3. Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(3), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466219922031365
  4. Eggen, T. J. H. M., & Straetmans, G. J. J. M. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing for classifying examinees into three categories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(5), 713-734. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970862
  5. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  6. Fan, Z., Wang, C., Chang, H., & Douglas, J. (2012). Utilizing response time distributions for item selection in CAT. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(5), 655-670. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998611422912
  7. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  8. Finkelman, M. (2008). On using stochastic curtailment to shorten the SPRT in sequential mastery testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(4), 442-463. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998607308573
  9. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.
  10. Harwell, M., Stone, C.A., Hsu, T.C., & Kirisci L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(2), 101-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000201
  11. Huebner, A. (2012). Item overexposure in computerized classification tests using sequential item selection. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(12), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/nrlc-yv82
  12. Huebner, A., & Li, Z. (2012). A stochastic method for balancing item exposure rates in computerized classification tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(3), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612439932
  13. Huo, Y. (2009). Variable-length computerized adaptive testing: adaptation of the a-stratified strategy in item selection with content balancing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Champaign. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/14715
  14. Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J. (1980). A Comparison of adaptive, sequential and conventional testing strategies for mastery decisions (Research Report 80-4). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: MN. http://iacat.org/sites/default/files/biblio/ki80-04.pdf
  15. Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D.J. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing, (pp. 237-254). Academic Press.
  16. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A.R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(4), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0204_6
  17. Krabbe, P. F. M. (2017). The Measurement of Health and Health Status: Concepts, Methods and Applications from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. New Developments (Ch.14, ss. 309-331). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801504-9.00014-3
  18. Leroux, A. J., Waid-Ebbs, J. K., Wen, P-S., Helmer, D. A., Graham, D. P., O’Connor, M. K, & Ray, K. (2019). An investigation of exposure control methods with variable-length cat using the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(8), 624-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618824856
  19. Leung, C.-K., Chang, H. H., & Hau, K. T. (2002). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson–Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(4), 376-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662102237795
  20. Lin, C. (2011). Item selection criteria with practical constraints for computerized classification testing. Applied Psychological Measurement 71(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410387336
  21. Lin, C. J., & Spray, J. (2000). Effects of item-selection criteria on classification testing with the sequential probability ratio test. ACT (Research Report 2000-8). Iowa city, IA: ACT Research Report Series. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445066
  22. Spray, J. A. & Reckase, M. D. (1994). The Selection of Test Items for Decision Making with a Computer Adaptive Test. The Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. NewOrleans, LA, 5-7 April 1994. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED372078
  23. Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D. (1996). Comparison of SPRT and sequential bayes procedures for classifying examinees into two categories using a computerized test. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(4), 405-414. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986021004405
  24. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 937-977). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. http://www.iacat.org/content/controlling-item-exposure-rates-computerized-adaptive-testing
  25. Thompson, N. A. (2007). A practitioner’s guide for variable-length computerized classification testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(1), 1-13. http://www.iacat.org/sites/default/files/biblio/th07-01.pdf
  26. Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item selection in computerized classification testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 778-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408324460
  27. Thompson, N. A. (2011). Termination criteria for computerized classification testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.7275/wq8m-zk25
  28. Thompson, N. A., & Ro, S. (2007). Computerized classification testing with composite hypotheses. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC conference on computerized adaptive testing. http://www.iacat.org/sites/default/files/biblio/cat07nthompson.pdf
  29. Van der Linden, W. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2004). Constraining item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with shadow tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986029003273
  30. Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1987). Estimating ability with the wrong model. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12(4), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165054
  31. Wang, S., & Wang, T. (2001). Precision of warm’s weighted likelihood estimates for a polytomous model in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466210122032163
  32. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294627
  33. Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(4), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb01040.x

This article is published under the CC BY 4.0 license.