Citation
Examining Content Control in Adaptive Tests: Computerized Adaptive Testing vs. Computerized Multistage Testing

Material Information

Title:
Examining Content Control in Adaptive Tests: Computerized Adaptive Testing vs. Computerized Multistage Testing
Creator:
Sari, Halil Ibrahim
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Research and Evaluation Methodology
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
MANLEY,ANNE CORINNE
Committee Co-Chair:
MILLER,DAVID
Committee Members:
JACOBBE,TIMOTHY
KAHVECI,TAMER
Graduation Date:
8/6/2016

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
cat
content-control
mst
Psychometrics ( jstor )
Parametric models ( jstor )
Standard error ( jstor )
Genre:
Unknown ( sobekcm )

Notes

General Note:
Many comparison studies have been conducted to investigate efficiency of the statistical procedures across computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized multistage testing (ca-MST). Although it is directly related to validity, score interpretation and test fairness, non-statistical issues of adaptive tests, such as content balancing, have not been given more attention. It is consistently asserted in several studies that major advantage of ca-MST is that it controls for content better than CAT. Yet, the literature does not contain a study that specifically compares CAT with ca-MST under varying levels of content constraints to verify this claim. A simulation study was conducted to explore the precision of test outcomes across CAT and ca-MST when the number of different content areas was varied across a variety of test lengths. One CAT and two ca-MST designs (1-3 and 1-3-3 panel designs) were compared across several manipulated conditions including total test length (24-item and 48-item test length) and number of controlled content areas. The five levels of the content area condition included zero (no content control), two, four, six and eight content area. All manipulated conditions within CAT and ca-MST were fully crossed with one another. This resulted in 2x5=10 CAT (test length x content area), and 2x5x2=20 ca-MST conditions (test length x content area x ca-MST panel design), for 30 total conditions. 4000 examinees were generated from N(0,1). All other conditions such as IRT model, exposure rate were fixed across the CAT and ca-MSTs. Results were evaluated with mean bias, root mean square error, correlation between true and estimated thetas and conditional standard error of measurement. Results illustrated that test length and the type of test administration model impacted the outcomes more than the number of content area. The main finding was that regardless of any study condition, CAT outperformed the two ca-MSTs, and the two ca-MSTs were comparable. The results were discussed in connection to the control over test design, test content, cost effectiveness and item pool usage. Recommendations for practitioner were provided. Limitations for further research were listed.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2018

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXAMINING CONTENT CONTROL IN ADAPTIVE TESTS: COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING VS. COMPUTERIZED MULTISTAGE TESTING By HALIL IBRAHIM SARI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016

PAGE 2

2016 Halil Ibrahim Sari

PAGE 3

To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my patient advisor Dr. Anne Corinne Huggins Manley for guiding me in my dissertation. I would not have completed this dissertation without her help. I am proud to be her graduating advisee. I would also like to thank to my committee members Dr s David Miller, Tim Jacobbe and Tamer Kahveci for their valuab le feedback on earlier versions of this dissertation. Secondly I would like to thank the Turkish Government for providing a full scholarship to pursue my graduate studies in the U.S. Without this scholarship, I would not be able to afford my graduate stu dies. I also thank Necla Sari and Zeki Uyar for trusting me. Lastly and most importantly I am thankful to my beloved wife, Hasibe Yahsi Sari and my adorable daughter Erva Bilge Sari, who have always been there as a motivation al source for me. I would not be able to complete this dissertation if they did not show understanding regarding my abnormal work schedule. I am also thankful in advance to my baby girl that I am expecting because I am getting rid of dissertation stress early thanks to her.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Test Administration Models ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 Connection of Content Control with Test Fairness and Validity ................................ ........... 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 Item Response Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 18 Assumptions of Item Response Theory ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models ................................ ................................ 20 Item and Test Information in IRT ................................ ................................ ................... 21 Overview of Computerized Adaptive Testing ................................ ................................ ........ 23 Item Bank ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Item Selection Rule ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 26 Ability Estimation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Item Exposure Control ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 30 Content Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32 Stopping Rule ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34 Overview of Computerized Multistage Testing ................................ ................................ ..... 35 Test Design and Structure ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 Number of panels ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 39 Number stages and modules ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 Number of items ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 40 Routing Meth od ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 41 Automated Test Assembly, Content Control and Exposure Control .............................. 43 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 44 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 Design Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 53 Fixed Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 53 CAT Simulations ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55

PAGE 6

6 Ca MST Simulations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 57 Evaluation Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 59 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 Overall Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 Mean Bias ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 Root Mean Square Error ................................ ................................ ................................ 68 Corr elation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 Conditional ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 69 5 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS ................................ ................................ .................... 80 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 95

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Main advantages and disadvantages of test administration models ................................ ... 17 3 1 Item parameters of each content area in the original item bank ................................ ........ 61 3 2 Item parameters of each content area in item bank 1 ................................ ......................... 62 3 3 Distribution of items across the contents areas and test lengths in CAT ........................... 63 3 4 The distribution of items in modules in ca MST across the content areas under 24 item test length ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 64 3 5 The distribution of items in modules in ca MSTs across the content areas in under 48 item test length ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 65 4 1 Results of mean bias across the conditions ................................ ................................ ........ 70 4 2 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was mean bias .............................. 71 4 3 Results of RMSE across the conditions ................................ ................................ ............ 72 4 4 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was RMSE ................................ .... 73 4 5 Correlation coefficients between true and estimated thetas across the conditions ............ 74 4 6 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was correlation ............................. 75

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 An example of item characteristic curve (ICC). ................................ ................................ 47 2 2 Total test information functions for thr ee different tests. ................................ .................. 48 2 3 The flowchart of computerized adaptive testing. ................................ ............................... 49 2 4 An example of 1 2 ca MST panel design. ................................ ................................ ......... 50 2 5 An example of 1 3 3 ca MST panel design ................................ ................................ ....... 51 2 6 Illustration of multiple panels in ca MST. ................................ ................................ ......... 52 3 1 Total information functions for four item banks. ................................ ............................... 66 4 1 Main effect of test administration model on mean bias within levels of test length. ........ 76 4 2 Interaction of test administration model and test length on RMSE within levels of number of content. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77 4 3 Main effect of test administration model on correlation within levels of test length. ....... 78 4 4 Conditional standard error of measurements ................................ ................................ ..... 79

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ca MST Computerized Multistage Testing CAT Computerized Adaptive Testing CSEM Conditional Standard Error of Measurement CTT Classical Test Theory ICC Item Characteristic Curve IRT Item Response Theory RMSE Root Mean Square Error SEM Standard Error of Measurement

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXAMINING CONTENT CONTROL IN ADAPTIVE TESTS: COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING VS. COMPUTERIZED MULTISTAGE TESTING By Halil Ibrahim Sari August 2016 Chair: Anne Corinne Huggins Manley Major: Research and Evaluation Methodology Many comparison studies have been conducted to investigate efficiency o f the statistical procedures across computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized multistage testing (ca MST) Although it is directly related to validity, score interpretation and test fairness, non statistical issues of adaptive tests, such as con tent balancing, have not been given more attention. It i s consistently asserted in several studies that major advantage of ca MST is that it controls for content better than CAT. Yet, the literature does no t contain a study that specifically compares CAT with ca MST under varying levels of content constraints to verify this claim. A simulation study was conducted to explore the precision of test outcomes across CAT and ca MST when the number of different con tent areas was varied across a variety of test lengths. One CAT and two ca MST designs (1 3 and 1 3 3 panel designs) were compared across several manipulated conditions including total test length (24 item and 48 item test length) and number of controlled content area s The five levels of the content area condition included zero (no content control), two, four, six and eight content area. All manipulated conditions within CAT and ca MST were fully crossed with one another. This resulted in 2x5=10 CAT (test length x content area), and 2x5x2=20 ca MST conditions (test length x content area x ca MST panel design), for 30 total

PAGE 11

11 conditions. 4000 examinees were generated from N (0,1). All other conditions such as IRT model, exposure rate were fixed across the CAT a nd ca MSTs. Results were evaluated with mean bias, root mean square error, correlation between true and estimated thetas and conditional standard error of measurement. Results illustrated that test length and the type of test administration model impacted the outcomes more than the number of content area. The main finding was that regardless of any study condition, CAT outperformed the two ca MSTs and the two ca MSTs were comparable. The results were discussed in connection to the control over test design, test content cost effectiveness and item pool usage Recommendations for practitioner were provided. L imitations for further research were listed

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Test Administration Models The increased role of computers in educational and psycho logical measurement has led testing companies (e.g., Educational Testing Service, Pearson, KAPLAN, The College Board, and American College Testing) and practitioners to explore alternative ways to measure student achievement. There are numerous test admini stration models. Each model has some pros and cons in terms of test validity, score reliability, test fairness and cost. The most widely used traditional model today is the linear form. In this testing approach, the exam is administered on paper, the same set of items are given to all examinees, and item order cannot change during the test (e.g., American College Testing ACT). Since all examinees receive the same set of items, it is relatively easy to construct the forms because it does not require an item pool, which requires additional time, effort and money. One of the big advantages of linear models is high test developer control on content. This means that prior to the test administration, for each subject (e.g., biology) practitioners can specify relat ed content areas (e.g., photosynthesis, ecology, plants, human anatomy, animals) and the number of items needed within each content area. Consistent content among all examinees is a vital issue because it is strongly related to test fairness (Wainer, Doran s, Flaugher, Green, & Mislevy, 2000) and validity (Yan, von Davier, & Lewis, 2014). For example, on a biology test if a test taker who is strong in ecology but struggles in other areas receives many ecology items but receives only a few items from other ar eas, this will most likely cause overestimation of her biology score. In this case, test validity will be threatened (Leung, Chang, & Hau, 2002). In addition, easier test administration, flexible scheduling, flexible item format, and item review by the exa minees are primary advantages associated with linear tests (Becker &

PAGE 13

13 Bergstrom, 2013). However, one big criticism of linear tests is the inevitable jeopardizing of test security (e.g., cheating). This is because each test item is exposed to all test takers which is a serious threat for test validity and score reliability (Thompson, 2008). It is possible to see some examples of linear tests that overcome item exposure rate and test security by creating multiple linear forms (e.g., SAT). But, drawback to thi s testing model is delayed scoring and late reporting. This requires test takers to wait for their test scores to become available, which can present a problem if test takers are near application deadlines relatively Long test length and low measurement e fficiency can be counted as other major disadvantages of linear tests (Yan et al., 2014). Linear tests can also be administrated on computers (e.g., linear computer based test or computer fixed tests). In this type of testing approach, the exam is deliver ed via computers. Linear CBTs can overcome some of the deficiencies of linear tests such as delayed reporting and late scoring but fail to deal with other deficiencies such as low measurement accuracy and long test length (Becker & Bergstrom, 2013). Another form of the test administration model is adaptive testing In this approach, as in the linear computer based tests, the exam is delivered on a computer, and the computer algorithms determine which items the examinee will receive based on her perfor mance. There are two versions of adaptive testing; computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized multistage testing ( ca MST). In CAT (Weiss & Kingsbury, 1984), the test taker starts the exam with an item that is at medium difficulty and then, depend ing on the performance on this item, the computer algorithm selects the next question that contributes the most information about her current ability from the item pool. This means that if a test taker gets the first item correct, the computer administers a more difficult item, if wrong, an easier item. In ca MST, the test taker

PAGE 14

14 receives a set of items instead individual items. She starts the exam with a testlet (e.g., a set of 5 or 10 items). Depending on the performance on this testlet, the computer sele cts the next testlet she shows poor performance on the first testlet, she receives an easier testlet, otherwise she receives a more difficult testlet. As im plied, the difference between ca MST and CAT is that there is a testlet level adaptation in ca MST, so the number of adaptation points is less than CAT. Both CAT and ca MST have multiple advantages over other administration models, such as immediate scorin g, high measurement accuracy, low test length and high test security (Yan et al., 2014). However, one drawback to adaptive testing models is that it is not very easy to ensure all examinees are exposed to the same distribution of items in terms of content. This is extremely critical, especially in high stakes administrations (Huang, 1996), because unless the content distribution of items is the same across examinees, the test is essentially measuring different con structs for different persons. The main adva ntages and disadvantages of each test administration model are summarized in Table 1 1. Since this dissertation is interested in both CAT and ca MST, these two testing models are elaborated on in Chapter 2. Connection of Content Control with Test Fairness and Validity Validity was once defined as a feature of a test device or instrument, but more recently nt of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of His well accepted definition implies that v alidity is a broad issue, and in order to assess it, multiple source of evidence are required. This has been echoed in several chapters in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research

PAGE 15

15 Association [AERA], American P sychological Association [APA], & National Council Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999). These sources include evidential and consequential basis evidences. Messick (1989) states that one must use these evidences for two purposes: a) interpretation of te (i.e., making decisions based on the test performance). Although some still prefer the traditional taxonomy (e.g., construct validity, content validity, internal validity, exter nal validity) (see Sireci, 2007), Messick argues validity is a unified concept, and that there is only one type of validity, which is construct validity, and all other types of validity are branched under it (Messick, 1989). Construct validity refers to t he degree to which a test instrument measures what it is supposed to measure (Cronbach, 1971). The essential goal of assessing construct validity is to cover all pieces of the construct of interest (e.g., critical thinking) as much as possible, and to show that there is no construct underrepresentation or overrepresentation. Construct and that is irrelevant with the targeted construct of interest. Construct underre presentation occurs where content control and construct validity interact. For example, a test that measures high nclude test items from all related content areas as required by the use of and interpretation of the scores, such as algebra, fractions, arithmetic, story based problems, functions, calculus, trigonometry, geometry, and possibly more. If the test content l acks items from one or more of the required areas, the insufficient content coverage results in construct underrepresentation, and thereby negatively impacts construct validity.

PAGE 16

16 Consequently, this impacts the accuracy of measurement, interpretation of test scores, and thereby test fairness. As stated before, linear tests have a unique advantage of high test designer control. Thus, it is easier to ensure that all examinees receive a sufficient number of test items from all content areas. In fact, in terms of this feature, they are even incomp arable with other test administration models. In contrast, there is a disadvantage in adaptive tests because in adaptive tests examinees receive overlapping or non overlapping test forms. Without proper algorithms for content balancing, the test might be t erminated for a test taker before receiving items from all content areas. Thus, it requires more consideration and effort to ensure that each examinee receives equal and sufficient number of items from all content areas. To be able to fully control test fa irness and measurement accuracy, and to draw valid score interpretations, more consideration should be given to the issue of content balancing requirements in adaptive testing administrations. Since adaptive tests have become popular, many statistical pro cedures (e.g., item selection rule, stopping rule, routing method) have been proposed and tested under a variety of conditions. Many comparison studies have been conducted to investigate efficiency of these statistical procedures across CAT and ca MST. Bec ause it is directly related to validity, score interpretation and test fairness, non statistical issues of adaptive tests, such as content balancing, have not been given enough attention. If content balancing is not met across the test forms received by ex aminees, other statistical conclusions made by test outcomes are not be comparable (Wainer et al., 2000). The goal of this study is to compare CAT and ca MST in terms of content balancing control. This study aims to explore and compare the accuracy of outc omes produced by these two adaptive test approaches when strict content balancing is required.

PAGE 17

17 Table 1 1. Main advantages and disadvantages of test administration models Test Model Advantages Disadvantages Linear Tests Easy of test administration Low cost and effort for form construction No item pool requirement Item review High test developer control Long test length Low measurement accuracy Late scoring and reporting Low test security Computerized Adaptive Testing Short test length Higher score accuracy High test security Quick scoring and reporting No item review or skip High cost for item pool development Strong model assumptions Requires complicated mathematical design Not very easy of test administration Computerized Multistage Testing Intermediate test length Higher score accuracy (but less than CAT) High test security Quick scoring and reporting Allows item review and skip High cost for item pool development Strong model assumptions Requires complicated mathematical design (but less th an CAT) Not very easy of test administration

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Item Response Theory Two widely used measurement theories for describing the relationships between observed variables (e.g., test items) and unobserved variables or latent traits (e.g., intelligence) are classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). During the last century, CTT has been extensively used in the analysis of educational and psychological measurement. However, it is criticized by psychometric theoretician s and practitioners for producing test and population dependent outcomes and for focusing on true scores (Lord, 1980). Another test theory approach of IRT is a strong mathematical theory, and describes the relationship between latent trait levels and respo nses to any given item. This relationship is described by item characteristic curves (ICC) (Crocker & Algina, 1986). An ICC (i.e., item response function) is an s shaped logistic curve that indicates the expected probability of a particular response to an item conditional on the latent trait levels. Each item in the test task has a separate ICC. Figure 2 1 visually shows an example of an ICC for a binary item in which a score of 1 is a correct score. In this figure, the x rsions of axis represents the probability of getting this item correct ( P associated with each latent score. Latent trait score or level represents the ability of a student, and theoretically ranges from typically in practice ranges from 3 to 3 (Baker, 1992). As can be inferred from Figure 2 1 the probability of getting an item correct increases as the level of the latent trait increases. There are three main properties for an item that shape the form o f an ICC of a binary item. These item properties are item discrimination denoted by a item difficulty denoted by b and pseudo guessing denoted by c The item discrimination (i.e., slope or steepness parameter) is

PAGE 19

19 examinees on the trait level (Embertson & Reise, 2000). The discrimination parameters typically ranges from 0.5 to 2 (Baker, 1992). A low a parameter makes the curve flatter and indicates that the probabilities are nearly equivalent across the different la tent scores (Baker, 1992). A high a parameter makes the curve steeper. The item difficulty (aka threshold or location parameter) is the corresponding value on the latent trait scale when one has a 50% probability of getting the item correct. The difficulty parameter typically ranges from 3 to 3 (Baker, 1992). A low value of b indicates that the item is easy, and a high value of b indicates the item is difficult. As the b parameter for an item increases the location of its ICC shifts from left to right on t he latent trait scale or vice versa. The last parameter is the pseudo guessing parameter (i.e., lower asymptote), and it corresponds to the probability of getting the item correct for examinees that have infinitely low latent score. Assumptions of Item Res ponse Theory IRT is considered a strong theory because it makes strong assumptions about the underlying data. There are three fundamental assumptions held by all IRT models: unidimensionality, local independence and monotonicity. Unidimensionality requires the items in the test to measure one and only one construct (e.g., math proficiency only). When the test measures more than one construct (e.g., both math and verbal ability), the assumption of unidimensionality is violated. Local independence states that there is no association between responses to any pairs of items in the test after controlling the effect of latent trait (Baker, 1992). This means that responses to the test items must be accounted for by the underlying latent trait only. One possible pra ctical scenario that could lead to a violation of local independence is that one item provides a clue for another item. In such a case, responses to one item depend on the other item beyond the effect of the latent trait. The last assumption is monotonicit y, which

PAGE 20

20 assumes that the probability of correct response monotonically increases as the latent trait score increases (Embertson & Reise, 2000). Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models There are different types of IRT models such as dichotomous IRT models (i.e., for items having two score categories as true/false), polytomous IRT models (i.e., for items having more than two score categories as never/sometimes/always), and multidimensional IRT models (for items measuring more than one construct). The focus in this study is on dichotomous IRT models. There are three different latent trait models commonly used for dichotomous data. These are the one parameter model (i.e., Rasch model) (Rasch, 1960), two parameter model (Lord & Novick, 1968) and three parameter model (Birnbaum, 1968). The one parameter model (1PL) is the simplest IRT model and allows the difficulty parameter only to vary across items. The 1PL model defines the conditional probability of a correct response on item i for person p ( X ip =1) as where b i is the difficulty parameter for item i p is the latent trait score for person p It is important to note that under the 1PL model, the discrimination parameter is one and constant across all items. Due to this nature, the 1PL model makes an additional assumption of objective measurement. The two parameter (2PL) model has both item di fficulty and item discrimination. The 2PL model defines the conditional probability of a correct response on item i for person p ( X ip =1) as (2 1) (2 2)

PAGE 21

21 where b i is the difficulty parameter, a i is the item di scrimination for item i p is the latent trait score for person p As noted, the 2PL model allows each item to have separate discrimination. The three parameter (3PL) model has item difficulty, item discrimination and pseudo guessing parameters that c an vary across items. The 3PL model defines the conditional probability of a correct response on item i for person p ( X ip =1) as where b i is the difficulty parameter, a i is the item discrimination, c i is the pseudo guessing parameter for item i p is the latent trait score for person p The 3PL model allows each item to have both separate discrimination and pseudo guessing parameter. In reality, each model is a subset of another model. For example, the 2PL model is the special form of 3PL model where the pseudo guessing model is fixed a t zero. The 1PL model is the special form of 2PL model where the discrimination parameter is constrained to one, and do not vary from item to item. Item and Test Information in IRT The dictionary definition of information is to learn about something or so meone. The meaning of information in an IRT context is similar but has more statistical meaning (Crocker & Algina, 1986). The item information function of item i for a trait level under the 3PL model is defined as (Lord, 1980); where I i i a i is the item discrimination, P i probability of correct response, Q i P i Q i item i As can be understood from the equation that in order to maximize the information, either (2 3) (2 4)

PAGE 22

22 discrimination parameter or conditional probability of scoring a 1 should be increased. In case of the 2PL model, where c =0, Equation 2 4 turns into In the case of the 1 PL, where a i =1 and c i =0, Equation 2 5 turns into The test information for a trait level is simply obtained by summing all conditional item information and is defined as where TI item test. Figure 2 2 shows total test information functions for three different tests. Based on the figure, test one provides more information for people at latent trait around 1, test two provides more information for people at latent trait around 0, test three provides mor e information for people at latent trait around 1. In other words, test one is an easy test, test two is a medium difficulty test, and test three is a difficult test. Item and test information (Birnbaum, 1968) play extremely important roles in IRT because they provide critical information about the extent to what performance an item and a test more accurately (Hambleton & Jones, 1993). In order to achieve this, the standard error of measurement (SEM) at each latent trait score must be minimized. This is possible when the difficulty of items in the task match with latent traits of students because the SEM is the lowest around the item difficulty level (Embertson & Reise, 2000). Otherwise, the SEM will increase concepts in IRT is that the SEM is not constant across the different latent trait scores, therefore, (2 5) (2 6) (2 7)

PAGE 23

23 item in formation varies across the latent score scale. The amount of information an item provides peaks at its difficulty level, but is mainly This means that as the discrimination increases the information an item provides increases. However, the location of the highest information point on the latent trait scale changes based on the difficulty level of the item. For example, items with high discrimination and low difficulty provide more information for low pr oficiency students, and items with both high discrimination and difficulty provide more information for high proficiency students. Adaptive testing makes use of information and SEM to target items onto examinees that maximize the former and minimize the la tter. Overview of Computerized Adaptive Testing The first attempt of computerized adaptive testing was made with intelligence tests by Alfred Binet in 1905 (Wainer et al, 2000). Then, it was used during World War I for army recruitment purposes (DuBois, 19 70). Even though these initial attempts were amateur as compared to today, they were invaluable in terms of burgeoning the field of alternative test administration. The late 1960s and early 1970s were the most critical years for CAT advancements. This is b ecause Fredrick Lord, David Weiss, and their colleagues laid the basis of the first IRT based CAT applications. The interest in CAT has been especially intensified recently, and more than two hundreds journal articles have been published in the last twenty five years in three top educational measurement journals (i.e., Journal of Educational Measurement, Applied Psychological Measurement, and Educational and Psychological Measurement ). The following parts in this chapter briefly describe principles and comp onents of CAT. An alternative name for computerized adaptive testing (CAT) is tailoring testing (Weiss level estimate, thereby each examinee works at her own pers onalized test (van der Linden &

PAGE 24

24 Glas, 2000). In general, the working principle of CAT is as follows. First, computer algorithms randomly administer an item (i.e., typically an item of medium difficulty) to an examinee. After her response to the first item, the computer estimates her latent score and selects the next item from the item pool that best matches with her current trait level. This means that as she gets the item correct, the computer gives a harder item, otherwise an easier item. This process con tinues until the stopping rule is satisfied. A flowchart in Figure 2 3 visually summarizes this. Like the other test administration models, CAT has some great advantages. Perhaps, the most attractive advantage of CAT is high measurement precision compared to linear tests (van der Linden & Glas, 2000). The second advantage is lower test length. In fact, it has been shown that a well designed CAT can reduce test length by 50% without any loss of measurement accuracy (Embertson & Reise, 2000). This is because each examinee receives items based on her ability level and does not waste her time with less or more difficult items. The third advantage of CAT is quick scoring and reporting. Examinees immediately learn their test score at the end of the test. Also, fl exible test scheduling can be counted as another advantage associated with CAT. There are some disadvantages associated with CAT. The first drawback is that CAT requires a large item bank. Item writing is not easy work, and requires professionalism and mo ney. A qualified item has to pass some certain criteria such as good discrimination and content appropriateness. Thus, this has to be done by content professionals. Furthermore, the estimated cost for a single qualified item ranges between $1,500 and $2,50 0 (Rudner, 2009). For instance, if we want to have a bank size of 500, it will cost between $750,000 and $1,250,000. In fact, this amount will increase as the bank needs maintenance. Compared to linear tests, this is a huge amount of money. The second draw back is that CAT is not very easy to implement (Yan et al., 2014). This is because it requires complicated software and fast computers to be available in

PAGE 25

25 test centers. The third drawback is that CAT does not allow examinees to review the items that are alr eady administered, and to skip any item during the test. Test takers have to respond all items and cannot go back to the previous item(s). There are some chief components of CAT. These include item banks, item selection rules, ability estimation methods, item exposure controls, content balancing procedures, and stopping rules. The item bank consists of all pre tested candidate items from all content areas, and psychometric properties of items (e.g., discrimination, difficulty, pseudo guessing) in the bank are known in advance. Ability estimation method is the mathematical method used to computer algorithm used to select the next most useful item according to trait estimate. Item exposure control is a mechanism used to prevent items from being over used. Content balancing rules are procedures used to ensure each examinee receives items from all content areas. Stopping rules are methods us ed to terminate the exam. Each component is detailed in the following section. Item Bank Item bank is a must in CAT administration. It is a collection of items that meet qualitative and quantitative requirements (Veldkamp & van der Linden, 2002). Both requ irements are extremely important for an item bank design because they determine the quality of the bank, thereby affect CAT outcomes (Flaugher, 2000). Qualitative requirements represent content area specifications and item formatting. For instance, for a t est to measure general reading ability, the item bank has to include many items that represent the following attributes: critical reading, understanding, vocabulary, paragraph comprehension, grammar. Furthermore, items should be carefully constructed and w ord count must be taken into account especially if the test is a speeded test. This is because students who receive too many items with a long word count will

PAGE 26

26 have a disadvantage even if the items are easy (Veldkamp & van der Linden, 2002). Quantitative re quirements represent psychometrics properties of the items in the bank. The items in the bank should be informative across different ability levels on the latent trait scale. Since the key feature ere must be many items at different difficulty levels (e.g., easy, medium, difficult items). This will make the total item bank information function (IBIF) wider. It is important to note that the IBIF is determined according to the purpose of the test. For example, if the purpose of the test is to measure everybody equally (e.g., a norm referenced test), then the shape of the IBIF should be rectangular distribution (Keng, 2008; Reckase, 1981). If the purpose of the test is to measure whether a test taker ha s sufficient knowledge (e.g., criterion referenced test), then the shape of the BIF should be s shaped distribution and peaked around the cut off score (Keng, 2008; Parshall, Spray, Kalohn, & Davey, 2002). Item Selection Rule Item selection rule is also a must in a CAT administration. The mathematical algorithm and/or working principle affects the performance of the selection rule and this impacts the outcomes. Most commonly used item selection rules are summarized in this section. The first proposed item based on Bayesian approach and selects the next item that reduces the variance of the posterior distribution and keeps selecting items until the variance of the posterior dist ribution reaches the specified level. One can refer to Owen (1975) for more technical details. An alternative procedure is maximum information proposed by Brown and Weiss (1977). Since the item properties in the bank are known in advance, the amount of inf ormation each item provides at the gridded latent abilities on the trait scale is also known in advance. This method of item selection selects the next item that maximizes the information at the current provisional trait. This method

PAGE 27

27 has been very popular and extensively used in the CAT literature. However, it has a limitation that items with high item discrimination will provide more information and be more likely over selected, especially at early stages of CAT (van der Linden & Glas, 2000). That jeopardi zes test security. Thus, this method should be used with a caution (i.e., item exposure rate should be controlled if it is of interest). One can refer to Brown and Weiss (1977) or Lord (1980) for the technical details. Another item selection method is b s tratified method proposed by Weiss (1973). This method stratifies item bank into group of items based on difficulty levels, and selects the next item that provides the highest information from the stratifications. However, a limitation of this method is th at information is mainly determined by item difficulty not item discrimination. One can refer to Weiss (1973) for technical details. Another item selection method is Kullback Leibler information (Chang & Ying, 1996). In this method of item selection, the K ullback Leibler (KL) information, which is the distance between two ability points on the latent trait score, is first estimated across the number of k items already administered for an examinee. Then, the next item that minimizes the KL information (i.e., best matching item with the current latent score) is selected. One can refer to Chang and Ying (1996) or Eggen (1999) for technical details. Another item selection rule is a stratified method proposed by Chang and Ying (1999). This method overcomes problems with maximum information and b stratified method by stratifying the item bank by discrimination parameters. As stated, items have high discrimination are consistently sele cted with the maximum information method. This method selects items from different item groups and solves item exposure problem in the maximum information method. One can refer to Chang and Ying (1999) for technical details.

PAGE 28

28 Another item selection method is weighted information criteria proposed by Veerkamp and Berger (1994). This method is similar to the maximum information method but specifies weights for item information across the items and groups items based on the weighted information, and selects th e next item from these grouped items. One can refer to Veerkamp and Berger (1994) for technical details. Furthermore, there are many new rules has been proposed in last two decades such as proportional method (Barrada, Olea, Ponsoda, & Abad, 2008), and rev ised rules Kullback Leibler function weighted by likelihood (Huang & Ying, 1996). One can refer to the cited articles for more description. Ability Estimation Like the item selection rule, ability estimation method is also a must in a CAT administration. T here are two main ability estimation method groups: Bayesian methods and non Bayesian methods. The most commonly used non Bayesian method is maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) (Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985). MLE begins with some a priori value (e.g., sta rting theta value) for the ability of the examinee and calculates the likelihood function with given response pattern (e.g., 0101100111) for an ability level. The likelihood function estimates the probability of having that response vector and finds the va lue of theta that most likely results in that observed pattern. For example, if a person got many items wrong (e.g., response vector of 000010001), the likelihood function will tell us that this response pattern belongs to someone that has very low latent trait. Then, MLE finds the point that maximizes the latent trait scale. This score is the estimate of latent trait for a test taker. First advantage of this metho d is that MLE is mathematically very easy procedure to use. Another advantage is that since item parameters are known in advance in CAT, estimations with MLE are unbiased compared to linear tests in which parameters of items are unknown (Wang & Vispoel, 19 98).

PAGE 29

29 One big disadvantage associated with MLE is that it does not provide an estimate for examinees that get all items right (i.e., perfect scores) or wrong (i.e., zero scores). This causes the likelihood function to infinitely increase and it becomes impo ssible to find the highest value on the likelihood function. This is a serious problem especially at early stages of CAT (Keller, 2000), and it is not recommended for short test length CATs (Wang & Vispoel, 1998). One can refer to Hambleton and Swaminathan (1985) and/or Lord (1980) for technical details. Three Bayesian methods commonly used in CAT are maximum a posteriori (Lord, 1986), posteriori (MAP) is similar to MLE but MAP specifies a prior distribution and then multiples this prior distribution by the likelihood function and then, does the same thing with the MLE. Most often, the prior distribution is chosen from a normal distribution. One big advantage of MAP is that i t provides estimates for perfect and zero scores and outperforms MLE (Wang & Vispoel, 1998). Another advantage associated with MAP is that ability estimation can be done even after the first item is administered in CAT and does not assume normality (Keller 2000). One can refer to Hambleton and Swaminathan (1985) and/or Keller (2000) for technical details. Another Bayesian method is expected a posteriori (EAP). EAP also specifies a prior distribution but unlike the highest point on the likelihood function found in MAP, it finds the mean of the posterior distribution which represents the estimate of the latent trait. Unlike the MLE and MAP, it is a non iterative procedure, so easy to implement. Also, it does not assume normal prior distribution as MAP, and E AP outperforms MLE and MAP meaning that produces lower standard error and bias than other CAT ability estimation methods. One possible disadvantage with EAP is that if inappropriate prior distribution is specified, this affects the accuracy of outcomes. Al so, for more accurate results, EAP requires at least 20 items in CAT,

PAGE 30

30 otherwise produce biased results than others (Wainer & Thissen, 1987). One can refer to Wainer and Thissen (1987) and/or Hambleton and Swaminathan (1985) for technical details. The last methods, this method also specifies a prior estimation and then does the same thing with MLE but the difference is that the prior distribution is updated after each admini strated item. It does this by specifying the prior distribution so that the mean and standard error of the prior distribution is equal to the mean and standard error of the posterior distribution in the most recent step (Keller, 2000). As the other Bayesi an methods, it also allows ability estimates for examinees with perfect or zero scores. This method is also a non iterative procedure so easy to implement. However, it produces high bias for ability estimates and is the least recommended Bayesian method in a CAT environment (Wang & Vispoel, 1998). One can refer to Owen (1975) for technical details. Item Exposure Control By nature, all item banks have some good and poor items for a particular trait score (Revuelta & Ponsoda 1998). As stated, the main goal of CAT is to find best item for a current latent trait estimate. Good items (i.e., items provide more information at a particular latent trait score) have higher likelihood of being selected, whereas, bad or poor items has lower chance of being selected. Thus, good items are selected again and again for different examinees, and poor items remain as unused. In such cases, some examinees might memorize these items, and share them with other test takers. This jeopardizes test security (Yi, Zhang, & Chang, 2006). In order to increase test security, item exposure rate should be controlled. There are more than thirty item exposure controls proposed in the last four decades. One can refer to Georgiadou, Triantafillou and Economides (2007) for full list and more details. In this study, we will summarize the most popular and commonly used procedures. They are a) 5 4 3 2 1 strategy (McBride & Martin,

PAGE 31

31 1983), b) randomesque strategy (Kingsbury & Zara, 1989), c) Sympson Hetter strategy (S ympson & Hetter, 1985), and d) a Stratified strategy (Chang & Ying, 1999). As stated, item exposure is a serious problem especially at early stages of CAT because at the beginning item selection methods might tend to select best informative items. In the 5 4 3 2 1 method, after the starting item and initial ability estimate, instead of selecting the best the test) is randomly selected from the top five info rmative items. The next second item is randomly selected from the four best informative items, the next third item is randomly selected from the four best informative items, the next fourth item is randomly selected from the two best informative items, and then system returns to normal flow and the next fifth item and subsequent items are selected to be best informative at the current ability estimate. Randomesque strategy is very similar to the 5 4 3 2 1 strategy in terms of attempting to minimize item ove rlap among the examinees. The difference is that instead of decreasing number of informative item groups, randomesque strategy constrains item selection to choose items always from the same number of best informative item groups (e.g., 2, 5, 10). For examp le, after starting item and initial trait estimate, the next first item is selected from top ten informative items, the second next item is also selected from the top ten informative items, and so on. These two methods are useful at early stages of CAT but do not control exposure rates over all items in the bank. Another strategy is Sympson Hetter (SH) which controls the exposure rate of all items in the bank, thereby, has been the most popular method so far. The SH is a probabilistic method, requires to se t up a pre determined exposure rate value for the items (e.g., r i ). This method calculates number of times an item administered as a proportion (e.g., ranges from 0 to 1) and record it. A proportion value of 1 means that the item is selected for everybody, a proportion value of zero means that the item is

PAGE 32

32 never selected. For example, the desired exposure rate for the items in the CAT version of Graduate Record Examination (e.g., GRE) was 0.20 (Eignor, Stocking, Way, & Steffen, 1993). This means that maximum 20% of the examinees were receiving an item. If the proportion for item i is lower than r i the selected item is also selected for another examinee, if it is equal to or higher than the r i returns to the bank. The last method is a Stratified strategy ( a STR). This methods ranks items from low discrimination to high, and stratifies items into the bank based on discrimination parameters (e.g., K strata). For an ability estimate, one of the items into a strata is selected. At the early stage of CAT, since li ttle information is known for ability estimates, items are selected from the stratas that have low discriminating items, later on since more information is known, items are selected from the stratas that have high discriminating items. Content Control As s tated, for a successful and valid CAT, it is a must to control content balancing so that each test taker takes equal and/or similar number or percentage of items from each content area. In this study, we will briefly summarize the four most commonly used c ontent control methods. First one is the constrained computerized adaptive testing (Kingsbury & Zara, 1989) which has been used in real CAT applications (CAT ASVAB, and Computerized Placement Tests) over the years (Chen & Ankenmann, 2004; Ward, 1988). As i t is elaborated, the main idea in item selection is that the selected item is the one that maximizes the information at the current latent trait estimate. The constrained computerized adaptive testing (CCAT) tabulates item informations according to pre spe cified content areas, and seeks the content area in which the number/percentage of selected items is farthest below the targeted percentages (Kingsbury & Zara, 1989). Then, the most informative item is selected from this content area. The CCAT method goals to reach targeted level of test specifications. This method is very simple and efficient to meet the desired content area distributions as long as the item pool is large enough.

PAGE 33

33 However, it has a limitation that sequence of content areas is predictable es pecially at early stages of CAT. As stated in Chen and Ankenmann (2004), after this method is used for a while later, examinees might predict the next content area and this content order knowledge might affect the probability of getting the item correct (C hen & Ankenmann, 2004). Another popular method is modified CCAT (MCCAT) proposed by Leung, Chang and Hau (2000) to overcome deficiencies of CCAT. This method basically does the same thing but, items are selected from any content area instead of from the on e that has the lowest exposure rate and deal with potential content order knowledge. Even though this effort, both CCAT and MCCAT do not provide efficient content control when test length varies across examinees (Chen & Ankenmann, 2004). Another content co ntrol of weighted deviation modelling (WDM is a mathematical strategy and, proposed by Stocking and Swanson (1993). The WDM specifies weights for content areas and as the CAT continues, for each content area calculates deviation from the targeted test spec ification, and then forces item selection to select items from mostly deviated content area (e.g., the one minimizes weighted distance). The method of maximum priority index (MPI) is proposed by Cheng and Chang (2009), and very popular method recently. In this method, instead of item information itself, the information an item provides for a theta level is multiplied by a weight. The number of weights are equal to the number of content areas, and items in the same content area have equal weight. Furthermore items in major contents have higher weights, items in minor contents have lower weights. The final equation (e.g., product of weight by information) is called the priority index. Then, the item that maximizes the priority index is selected as the next it em (Cheng & Chang, 2009). For more technical detail, the readers can refer to the original studies.

PAGE 34

34 Stopping Rule A stopping rule determines the length of CAT, and is another essential component in CAT (Babcock & Weiss, 2009). Unlike the other components, stopping rule is less complicated. There are two different commonly used stopping rules in CAT as a) fixed test length and b) varying test length. Fixed test length requires all examinees to receive the same number of pre specified items. For example, if t he specified test length is 60, the test is terminated for a test taker after she responded her 60 th item, regardless of the level of measurement accuracy. Another stopping rule is varying test length (aka minimum information criteria or minimum standard e rror SE). This rule terminates the test for a test taker when the target level of precision is obtained (Segall, 1996). For example, if the pre specified value of SE is 0.3, the test stops for a test taker when her latent trait is calculated with a standar d error of 0.3. It has been an argument over the years that varying test lengths produce biased results than fixed tests (see Babcock & Weiss, 2009; Chang & Ansley, 2003; Yi, Wang, & Ban, 2001). Babcock and Weiss (2009) tested both rules under a variety of conditions and concluded that varying tests produce equal or slightly better results than fixed tests (Babcock, & Weiss, 2009). Their huge simulation study showed that a) CATs lower than 15 or 20 items do not produces good estimates of latent trait, b) CA Ts higher than 50 items do not provide meaningful gain in estimates of latent trait, c) recommended value of SE is 0.315 for varying CATs (Babcock & Weiss, 2009). Furthermore, it is also possible to combine these methods. For example, one can design a CAT that requires a target measurement precision by constraining minimum and maximum number of items (see Thissen & Mislevy, 2000). This can be efficient to prevent both very early termination and test fatigue. It is important to note that like item bank desi gn, stopping rule also depends on the purpose of the tests (Segall, 2005). For example, if the target is to gain equal measurement precision across all examinees for interpretation and/or decision purposes (e.g.,

PAGE 35

35 personality test), then varying test should be used. If the test a placement test for hiring decisions and test fatigue is a concern, fixed test length should be used. Overview of Computerized Multistage Testing The m ultistage testing has been proposed as an alternative test administration method to CAT. Over the years, it has been called by different names such as two stage testing (Kim & Plake, 1993), computerized mastery testing (Lewis & Sheehan, 1990), computer adaptive sequential testing (Luecht, 2000), and bundled multistage testing (Luecht, 2003). Although operational use of multistage testing is relatively new compared to linear tests and CAT, the MST idea is not new (Yan et al., 2014). Early MST designs date back to the 1950s (see Angoff & Huddleston, 1958). The first versions of MSTs were on paper and pencil format and there was no adaptation from one point to another (see Cronbach & Glaser, 1965; Lord, 1971 & 1974; Weiss, 1973). However, since the research on CAT eclipsed MST, adaptive version of multistage testing which is the interest in this study, has been proposed for use (Keng, 2008; Mead, 2006). Most recently, the adaptive version of multistage testing is called computer adaptive multistage testing or computerized multistage testing (ca MST), and has gained its popularity recently and more than one hundred journal articles have been published in the last twenty years. Also, the number of operational examples has increased recently (e.g., The Massachusetts Adult Proficiency Test, GRE, The Law School Admission Council, The Certified Public Accountants (CPA) Examination). In terms of test feature, it can be said that ca MST is a combination of linear tests and CAT. The ca MST terminology includes some special terms not used in other testing procedures. These include module, stage, pa nel, routing, path and test assembly. The ca MST is comprised of different panels (e.g., a group of test forms), panels are comprised of different stages (e.g., division of a test), and stages are comprised of pre constructed item sets (i.e., in ca

PAGE 36

36 MST lit erature, each set is called a module) at different difficulty levels (Luecht & Sireci, 2011). This means that at each stage some of the modules are easier and some of them are harder. In other words, some modules provide more information for low proficienc y test takers, some provide more information for high proficiency test takers. There is almost always one module in stage one which is called the routing module which is used to establish test taker proficiency level. The test taker moves to the next modul e on the test based on the performance on the routing module. The number of the stages and the number of the modules in each stage, and the number of the items in each module can vary from ca MST to ca MST. Figure 2 4 shows an example of simplest possible ca MST structure with two stages and two modules in stage two. This structure is called the 1 2 panel design. Two numbers in the structure name means there are two stages, each number represents total number of modules at that stage. As shown in the figu re, there are two possible pathways that a test taker might draw (e.g., Routing Easy and Routing Hard). Figure 2 5 shows a more complex ca MST design with 3 stages and 3 modules in stage 2 and 3. This structure is called the 1 3 3 panel design. Similarly, the three used numbers in the structure name means a total number of stages, and each number in the triplet represents the number of module s at that stage. There are seven possible paths in this type of ca MST design. These are: Routing Easy Easy, Routing Easy Medium, Routing Medium Easy, Routing Medium Medium, Routing Medium Hard, Routing Hard Medium, Routing Hard Hard. As can be understood from the figure, the pathways from a module to another module in the next stage that is not adjacent to the current module are ignored. For example, if a student receives easy module at the stage 2, even if she shows very high performance on this module, t he student is not permitted to receive the hard module at the stage 3. The strategy of disallowing extreme jumps among the module is highly common in many ca

PAGE 37

37 MST designs (Luecht, Brumfield, & Breithaupt, 2006), and prevents aberrant item responses and inco nsistent response patterns (Davis & Dodd, 2003; Yan et al., 2014). Both Figure 2 4 and 2 5 display an example of one panel only. Whereas, a computerized multistage panel is referred a collection of modules (Luecht & Nungester, 1998). In order to control pa nel exposure rate (and thereby module and item), ca MST designs consist of multiple panels that are similar to each other, and each test taker is randomly assigned to one of them. Figure 2 6 shows an example of multiple panels. Panel construction procedure will be described later on. In general, the working principle of ca MST is as follows. After assigning a test taker to a panel, unlike individual items in CAT, ca MST starts with a routing module (e.g., a set of 5 or 10 items). After the routing module, t he first stage of ca MST, the computer calculates the test pre constructed modules in the second stage, and routes the test taker to the appropriate module For example, if her performance on the routing module is a high, she receives hard module in the second stage, otherwise easier module is selected. After she completes the second stage, again, computer calculates her current latent trait score, and route s her to the most appropriate module in the third stage. This process continues until the test taker completes all stages. It is very clear that the main distinction between CAT and ca MST is that there is an item level adaptation in CAT in contrast to the module level adaptation in ca MST. Like the other test administration models, the ca MST also has some advantages and disadvantages over other test administration models. Perhaps, the most attractive advantage of ca MST over CAT is that ca MST is more fl exible in terms of item review and item skipping. ca MST allows examinees to go back to the previous items within each module, and to skip any

PAGE 38

38 item as well. However, examinees are not allowed to go back to the previous stage(s), and review items in the pre vious module(s). Compared to linear tests, the ability to go back to the limited number of previous items is a drawback but compared to the CAT, it is a remarkable feature. There is a well known motto that the first answer is always correct, and students s hould always trust their initial responses (van der Linden, Jeon, & Ferrara, 2011). However, a research by Bridgeman (2012), an ETS practitioner, proved that common belief is a superstition, and there was an increase in measurement of student abilities whe n examinees had chance to review the items (Bridgeman, 2012). In terms of test length, ca MST stays between linear tests and CAT. This means that ca MST produces shorter test length than linear tests but longer test length than CAT (Hendrickson, 2007). In terms of test design control (e.g., content area, answer key balance, word counts etc...), ca MST allows more flexibility than CAT but less than linear tests. In terms of measurement efficiency, ca MST produce much better measurement accuracy than linear tests (Armstrong, Jones, Koppel, & Pashley, 2004; Patsula, 1999) but equal or slightly lower accuracy than CAT (Armstrong et al., 2004; Kim & Plake, 1993; Patsula, 1999). However, some of the drawbacks to CAT such as high cost of item bank creation still remain as an important concern in ca MST. Also, while CAT can stop at any point (if stopping rule is satisfied), and reduce the test time, due to the module level adaptation, the ca MST continues until one completes all stages (Zheng, Nozawa, Gao, & Chang, 2012). By taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ca MST, it can be said that ca MST is a highly practicality, measurement accuracy, and control over tes Luetch, 2010, p.369). Like the CAT, ca MST has some chief components as test design and

PAGE 39

39 structure, routing method, ability estimation, content control and test assembly, exposure control. Since the same ability estimation m ethods (e.g., ML, MAP, and EAP) are used in ca MST, and conclusions in CAT are the same in ca MST, ability estimation section is not presented again. Remaining components are elaborated below. Test Design and Structure Prior to an ca MST administration, o ne must determine panel design or structure. This includes determining number of panels, number of stages, number of modules in each stage, number of items in each module, and total number of test items. These steps are summarized in the following sections Number of panels As stated before, ca MST comprises parallel test forms called panel, and assignment of test takers to the panels occurs randomly (Luecht, 2003). Having multiple panels helps to reduce panel, module and item exposure rate, and prevent it ems being overused. This is very critical to importance of the exam (e.g., high stake or low stake), the number of panels changes but in both operational examples a nd simulation studies it usually varies from one to forty (Yan et al., 2014). Number stages and modules As stated before, modules in each stage differ in average d ifficulty levels, but the number of items and proportion of content specifications are the same across the modules in a stage (i.e., not necessarily be the same in modules at different stages). There are several examples of ca MST design configurations in the literature such as 1 2 (see Wang, Fluegge, & Luecht, 2012), 1 3 (see Schnipke & Reese 1999; Wang, Fluegge, & Luecht, 2012), 1 2 2 (see Zenisky, 2004), 1 3 3 (see Keng & Dodd, 2009; Luecht et al., 2006; Zenisky 2004), 1 2 3 (see

PAGE 40

40 Armstrong & Roussos 200 5; Zenisky 2004), 1 3 2 (see Zenisky,2004), 1 1 2 3 (Belov & Armstrong, 2008; Weissman, Belov, & Armstrong, 2007), 1 5 5 5 5 (Davey & Lee 2011), 1 1 2 3 3 4 (Armstrong et al. 2004), 5 5 5 5 5 5 (Crotts, Zenisky, & Sireci 2012). The two stage design is the simplest and most widely used in both operational applications (e.g., revised version of GRE) and simulation studies. This is because there is only one adaptation point in this configuration but this property also brings it to the disadvantage of higher li kelihood of routing when necessary, but it was not found very attractive (see Schnipke & Reese 1999). Thus, as the previous studies showed, although the test compl exity increases, adding more stages and modules into each stage, and/or allowing more branching increases test outcomes (Luecht & Nungester 1998; Luecht, Nungester, & Hadadi 1996). This is more likely due to having more adaptation points. Armstrong, et al studies displayed that having more than four stages does not produce meaningful gain in test outcomes, and two or three stages with two or three modules at each stage are sufficient for a ca MST adm inistration (Armstrong, et al. 2004; Patsula & Hambleton, 1999; Yan et al., 2014). Number of items The ca MST is a fixed length test so, it is necessary to decide the total test length for a test taker. The total test length varies from ca MST to ca MST ( e.g., from 10 to 90). Then, it is necessary to decide the number of items in each module. It is possible to assign different number of items into the modules at different stages. However, based on the previous research a) adding more items into the tests i ncreases reliability of test scores and thereby measurement accuracy (Crocker & Algina, 1986), b) varying number of items in modules at different stages do not affect test outcomes (Patsula & Hambleton, 1999), c) increasing number of items in the routing

PAGE 41

41 m odule have positive effect on test outcomes (Kim & Plake, 1993), d) under the same number of total items, having shorter modules is better due to allowing more adaptation points. Routing Method Routing method is analogous to item selection method in CAT. Since there is a module level adaptation in ca MST, routing method is used to decide the subsequent modules that an examinee will receive (Luetch, 2003). The efficiency of routing method affects the pathway a student draws during the test, so misrouting impacts the test outcomes, and thereby usefulness of ca MST (Lord, 1980). Thus, it is tremendously important component in ca MST. The routing methods are considered into two categories as dynamic rules and static rules (Yan et al., 2014). 2000) is an information based method, and analogous to the MI item selection method in CAT. administered module(s), and then selects the module that maximizes information at his/her current ability estimate (Weissman et al., 2007). Both two static methods define cut points (e.g., routing points or upper and lower bounds) for latent traits when routing examinees to the modules but they differ in defining cut points. First static rule of module selection method is the ap proximate maximum information method (AMI) (Luecht, 2000) which is mainly used in criterion referenced test administration (Zenisky, 2004). In AMI routing method, computer algorithm calculates cumulative test information function (TIF) based on the previou sly administered modules, and the TIFs of the current alternative modules (e.g., easy, medium, hard modules). Then, it adds each alternative TIFs as the cut poin ts (e.g., if the two intersection points of three TIFs are 1 and 1, cut points are 1 and 1). Finally, computer routes examinees to the one of the alternative module that provides

PAGE 42

42 the highest information for the provisional latent trait of an examinee. (e .g., if 1 examinee is routed to easy module, if if routed to hard module). Second static rule of module selection method is the defined population interval (DPI) or number correct (NC) which is mainly used in norm referenced test administration (Zenisky, 2004). The main goal in this method is to route specific proportion of people to the modules to ensure equal or highly close number (or proportion) of people draws each possible pathwa y (e.g., 33% of examinees routed to easy module, 34 % of examinees routed to medium module, 33% of examinees routed to hard module). For example, in a 1 3 corresponding to the 33 rd and 67 th distribution are calculated (e.g., if scores for the 33 rd and 67 th percentiles are 0.44 and 0.44, respectively). These are actually defined as the cut points in DPI method. Then, these cut points are transfor med to corresponding estimated true scores. Finally, examinees are routed to the one of the alternative modules based on the number of correct responses they got on the current module (e.g., out of 10 items, people got 6 or less items correct are routed to easy module, people got 7 or 8 items correct are routed to medium module, people got 9 or 10 items correct are routed to hard module) (see Zenisky et al., 2010 for more details). Compared to MFI and AMI method, the DPI is fairly straightforward to implem ent but it requires to an assumption on the distribution of theta scores to specify cut points prior to the test administration. Misrouting is more likely to occur when there is a huge discrepancy between the actual and assumed distributions. However, prev ious research showed that in terms of routing decisions, DPI or NC is very practical and sufficient for a ca MST design (Weissman et al.,

PAGE 43

43 2007). However, the choice of routing method is mainly determined according to the purpose and consequences of the tes t (Zenisky et al., 2010). Automated Test Assembly, Content Control and Exposure Control The ca MST is designed in such a way that test takers receive pre constructed modules based on their performance on the previous module (Armstrong & Roussos 2005). This means that each subsequent module has to match with the current ability of a taker. Thus, items must be carefully grouped into the modules. The most critical consideration here is to group items in the item bank into the modules based on the information f unctions. Some used trial error method and manually assembled modules (see Davis & Dodd, 2003; Reese & Schnipke 1999), but it is quite difficult to satisfy all constraints (e.g., number of items, controlling content area) and to create parallel panels wit h manually assembled tests. Thus, it is always best to use a better strategy because the automated test assembly (ATA) is a must in ca MST (Luecht, 2000). to select item s from an item bank for one or more test forms, subject to multiple constraints of ATA procedure ensures that items in modules and panels meet the desired cons traints such as before, one has to decide ca MST panel structure, total test length for a test taker and total number of panels prior to the ca MST administrat ion. Next, based on the ca MST structure, the test designer has to determine the number of items in each module, and to pull a group of items from the given item bank that meet all desired constraints. There are some software used to solve ATA problems in ca MST studies such as IBM CPLEX (ILOG, Inc., 2006), CASTISEL (Luecht, 1998). After solving the ATA, the test designer has to place items into the modules and these modules into the panels. There are two approaches used to assign modules into the panels,

PAGE 44

44 b ottom up and top down (Luecht & Nungester, 1998). In bottom up approach, all modules are built so as to meet module level specifications such as content, target difficulty. It is possible to think of each module as a mini test (Keng, 2008). Since modules c onstructed with this strategy are strictly parallel, modules are exchangeable across the panels. In bottom down approach, the modules are built based on test level specifications. Since the modules are dependent and not parallel, not exchangeable across th e panels. Statement of the Problem Large scale tests in educational and psychological measurement are constructed to measure student ability using items from different content areas related to the construct of interest. This is a requirement for a validit y because the degree of validity is related to showing that test content aligns with the purpose of the use of the test and any decisions based on test scores ( Luecht, de Champlain, & Nungester, 1998). This means that a lack of test content from one or mor e areas severely impacts validity. It is well known that even if score precision is very high as would be the case through proper adaptive algorithms in CAT or ca MST, this does not necessarily ensure that the test has valid uses (Crocker & Algina, 1986) In other words, high score precision might not represent the intended construct if the content balancing in not ensured Furthermore, if all students are not tested on all aspects of the construct of interest, test fairness is jeopardized. For these reason s, any test form adapted to an examinee has to cover all related and required sub content areas for validity and fairness purposes. As discussed in the literature review, both CAT and ca MST have a long history of use. Much research has been conducted on C AT including the proposal of new item selection methods (e.g., Barrada et al., 2008; Chang & Ying, 1996), stopping rules (e.g., Choi, Grady, & Dodd, 2010), and exposure control methods (e.g., Leung et al., 2002; van der Linden & Chang, 2005). Researched ar eas of ca MST include proposals for new routing methods (Luetch, 2000;

PAGE 45

4 5 Thissen & Mislevy 2000), test assembly methods (Luetch, 2000; Luecht & Nungester, 1998), and stage and module specifications (Patsula, 1999). Furthermore, many comparison studies have b een conducted to explore efficiency of CAT versus ca MST in terms of different test outcomes (see Davis & Dodd, 2003; Hambleton & Xing, 2006; Luecht et al., 1996; Patsula, 1999). However, the main focus in the comparison studies was the statistical compone nts of CAT and/or ca MST, and little consideration has been given to the non statistical aspects of adaptive tests such as content balancing control (Kingsbury & Zara, 1991; Thomasson, 1995). This is critical because selection of items in CAT and/or assign ing items into the modules in ca MST is confounded by content balancing concerns (Leung, Chang, & Hau, 2003). In order to reap the benefits of an adaptive tests over linear tests, content balancing has to be strictly met ( Luecht et al., 1998 ), otherwise, t est scores of students will be incomparable, and test validity will be questionable (Segall, 2005). So far, many aspects of CAT and ca MST have been compared under varying conditions including test length (Kim & Plake, 1993), item exposure rates (Davis & Dodd, 2003; Patsula, 1999), item pool characteristics (Jodoin, 2003) and pool utilization (Davis & Dodd, 2003). The common findings in these studies was that due to the item level adaptation and/or more adaptation points, CAT produces better accuracy of ab ility estimation (Yan et al., 2014) However, it is consistently asserted in several studies that a major advantage of ca MST is that it controls for content better than CAT (see Chuah, Drasgow, & Luecht 2006; Linn, Rock, & Cleary 1969; Mead 2006; Patsula & Hambleton 1999; Stark & Chernyshenko 2006; van der Linden & Glas 2010; Weiss & Betz, 1974; Yan et al., 2014 ). Yet, the literature does not contain a study that specifically compares CAT with ca MST under varying levels of content constraints to verify th is claim. It is obvious that due to the feature of test assembly, ca MST can easily meet

PAGE 46

46 content constraints. However, it is still unknown what we lose by administering ca MST versus CAT when the two are different in how they select items from the same ite m bank to meet varying levels of content control goals. This dissertation aims to explore the precision of test outcomes across the CAT and ca MST when the number of different content areas is varied across a variety of test lengths. The study seeks answer s to the following research questions: 1. How will the test outcomes be impacted when number of content area and test length are varied within each testing model (e.g., CAT, 1 3 ca MST, 1 3 3 ca MST)? 2. How will the test outcomes be impacted when number of cont ent areas is varied under different panel designs (1 3 vs 1 3 3) and different test lengths (24 item and 48 item test length) on the ca MST? 3. How will the test outcomes be impacted on the CAT and ca MST under the combinati on of the levels of test length and content area?

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2 1. An example of item characteristic curve (ICC).

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2 2. Total test information functions for three different tests.

PAGE 49

49 Figure 2 3. The flowchart of computerized adaptive testing.

PAGE 50

50 Figure 2 4. An example of 1 2 ca MST panel design.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 2 5. An example of 1 3 3 ca MST panel design

PAGE 52

52 Figure 2 6. Illustration of multiple panels in ca MST.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Design Overview In this dissertation, one CAT design and two ca MST panel designs were compared across several manipulated conditions. Two different ca MST panel designs were simulated: the 1 3 and the 1 3 3 structure panel designs, with panels and modules constructed by integer programming. The common manipulated conditions across CAT and ca MST were test length with two levels and number of controlled content area with five levels. All manipulated conditions within CAT and ca MST were fully crossed with one another. This resulted in 2x5=10 CAT conditions (test length x content area), and 2x5x2=20 ca MST conditions (test length x content area x ca MST design), for 30 total conditions. For each condition 100 replications were performed. For better comparability, the followi ng features were fixed across CAT and ca ca MST administrations: exposure rate, item bank, IRT model, and ability estimation method. Both varied and fixed conditions are detailed in following sections. Fixed Conditions The item parameters used in this di ssertation were based on a real ACT math test as used in Luecht (1991) and Armstrong et al., (1996). The original item bank consisted of 480 multiple choice items from six content areas. The item parameters and number of items from each content in the original item bank were given in Table 3 1 In order to better compare the 30 conditions, and to avoid differences in content difficulty across the two, four, six and eight content area conditions, four additional item banks were generated (e.g., it em bank 1, item bank 2, item bank 3 and item bank 4). These four different item banks were used in both CAT and ca MST simulations, each for different content conditions. For the two content conditions, one relatively easy (Content 1) and one relatively ha rd content area (Content 6) from six available on the real

PAGE 54

54 ACT test were selected (i.e., item bank 1). Under the four, six, and eight content conditions, the same sets of ACT items were used as in the two content condition, with multiple modules being deve loped from those sets. All conditions had an equal number of easy and hard content areas within each item bank to avoid content difficulty problems in the interpretations of the results. All item banks had 480 items each with an equal number of items from each content area. This means that there were 240, 120, 80 and 60 items from each content area in item bank 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Under the no content control condition, item bank 1 was used but content ber of items for eac h content area in item bank 1 was given in Table 3 2 Again, the properties of items in other item pools are the same except the number of content areas and number of items. The total information functions for the four item banks are gi ven in Figure 3 1 As expected and desired, the level of average item bank difficulty was very similar across the item banks. Many conditions in this study were simulated for equivalency across CAT and ca MST. These similarities allow ed us to compare diff erent content conditions not only within CAT and ca MST designs, but also across the CAT and ca MST designs. First, four thousand examinees were generated from a normal distribution, N (0, 1). The theta values that represent examinees were re generated for each replication and used for CAT and two ca MST simulations. Second, under a particular content area condition, ca MST modules and panels for two different panel designs were built from the same item banks used for CAT simulations. Specifically, in the two, four, six and eight content ca MST conditions, the modules and panels for both 1 3 and 1 3 3 panel designs were built from item bank 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. In both ca MST and CAT, the 3PL IRT model (Birnbaum, 1968) was used (see Equation 2 3) to generate the item responses. Third, exposure rates were equal across the CAT and ca MST simulations. The

PAGE 55

55 maximum item level exposure rate in CAT simulations was 0.25. The four essentially parallel panels created in ca MST designs also had an exposure rate of 0.25 is for a panel and for a module. In practice, only routing modules are seen by all examinees that are assigned to a panel, and the subsequent modules in each panel are seen by fewer examinees. Fourth, a s the ability estimation method, the expected a posteriori (EAP) (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) with a prior distribution of N (0, 1) was used for both interim and final ability estimates across the CAT and ca MST. The w hole simulation process for both CAT and ca MST were completed in R version 2.1.1 (R Devel opment Core Team, 2009 2015). Varied conditions in CAT and ca MST simulations are detailed in the following sections. CAT Simulations There were two varying conditions in the CAT design; test length with two levels and number of controlled content area wit h five levels. The two different levels of test length were 24 item and 48 item length as used in similar simulation studies ( Zenisky et al., 2010). This means that the test stopped after each test taker responds to the 24th and 48th item, respectively. The five levels of content area condition included zero (e.g., no content control), two, four, six and eight content area. No content control means tha t students did not necessarily receive pre specified number of items from each content area. For example, in a biology test, while one student might receive eight botany items, eight ecology items, eight organ systems items, another student might receive l ess balanced items from these content areas In the two content condition, the target proportions for content 1 and 2 were 50% and 50%, and the corresponding number of items were 12, 12 and 24, 24 for 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectivel y. In the four content condition, the target proportions for content 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 25% each and the corresponding number of items were 6 and 12 for 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively. In the six content condition, the target pro portions for content 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

PAGE 56

56 were 16.6% each and the corresponding number of items were 4 and 8 for 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively. In the eight content condition, the target proportions for content 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were 12.5% each, and the corresponding number of items were 3 and 6 for 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively. Under the no content control condition, students received a total of 24 and 48 items without ensuring number of items they received from each content area. The distribution of items across the contents areas and test lengths in CAT simulations a re summarized in Table 3 3 The literature showed that in terms of measurement accuracy, the constrained CAT (CCAT; Kingsbury & Z ara, 1989) method produced very similar results with other content control methods (Leung et al., 2003). So, the CCAT method was used for content control procedure as also used in many real CAT applications (Bergstrom & Lunz, 1999; Kingsbury, 1990; Zara, 1 989). This method tracks the proportion of administered items for all contents. Then, the next item is selected from the content area that has the lowest proportion of administered items (e.g., largest discrepancy from the target proportion). The Sympson Hetter (Sympson & Hetter, 1985) method with a fixed value of r i = 0.25 was used for item exposure control. Since the first theta estimate is calculated after responding to the first item, the initial theta is not known prior to the CAT administration. A ty pical approach to choosing the first item is to select an item of medium difficulty (i.e., b = 0), which was used in this study. The maximum information method (Brown & Weiss, 1977) was used as the item selection rule. This method selects the next item th at provides the highest information about her current theta estimate by satisfying the content constraints.

PAGE 57

57 Ca MST Simulations Two different ca MST designs were built, the 1 3 structure design (e.g., two stage test) and the 1 3 3 structure design (e.g., t hree stage test). In any particular content area condition, all modules at any stage had the same number of items. This means that in the 1 3 panel design, there were 12 and 24 items per module under 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively In the 1 3 3 panel design, there were 8 and 16 items per module under 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively. The distribution of items across the content areas in each module are given in Table 3 4 and Table 3 5 for 24 item and 48 item test length conditions, respectively. When the content was not controlled, the number of items in each module was the same under the stated conditions but the proportions across the content areas given in 3 4 and 3 5 were not necessarily met. Previous re search has shown that there are only slight differences between routing methods. In order to maximize the similarities between CAT and ca MST, the maximum information method (Lord, 1980) was selected as the routing strategy because it can be similarly appl ied in both types of test administrations. Test a ssembly In both 1 3 and 1 3 3 ca MST designs, four non overlapping essentially parallel panels were generated from item bank 1, 2, 3 and 4. Creating multiple panels in ca MST aimed to hold the maximum pane l, module, and item exposure rates comparable to the CAT simulations. Panels and modules were created with IBM CPLEX (ILOG, Inc., 2006). This process was completed in two steps. First items were clustered into different modules, then modules were randomly assigned to the panels. The bottom up strategy was used to create panels, which means that modules at the same difficulty level were exchangeable across the panels. As shown in Luecht (1998), the automated test assembly finds a solution to maximize the IRT information function at a fixed theta point (see Equation 2 4). Let

PAGE 58

58 theta point, and suppose we want a total of 24 item in the test. We first define a binary decision variable, xi, (e.g., xi=0 means item i is not selected from the i tem bank, xi=1 means item i is selected from the item bank). The information function we want maximize is; where content areas (e.g., C 1 and C 2 ), and want to select an equal number of items from each content area. The automated test assembly is modeled to maximize which put constraints on C 1 C 2 the total test length, and the range of decision variables, respectively. The test assembly models under other conditions (e.g., 48 item test length, six content area) can be modeled similarly. When content balancing was not controlled, the constraints o n the contents were removed from the test assembly model. In all conditions, the three f ixed theta scores were chosen as represent the target information functions for easy, medium and hard modules, respectively. In both panel desi gns, the items in routing modules were chosen from medium difficulty items (e.g., items that maximize information function at theta point of 0). In the 1 3 panel design, there were (3 1) subject to (3 2) (3 3) (3 4) (3 5) (3 6)

PAGE 59

59 two medium modules, one easy and one hard module in each panel. In the 1 3 3 panel design, there were two easy, three medium and two hard modules in each panel. After modules were built, randomly assigned to the panels. Evaluation Criteria The results of the simulation were evaluated with two set of statistics: (a) overall result s, (b) conditional results as evaluated in similar studies (see Han & Guo, 2014; Zenisky, 2004) For overall statistics, m ean bias, root mean squared e rror (RMSE), and correlation between estimated and true theta ( ) were computed from the simulation results as illustrated below. Let N denote the total number of examinees, the estimated theta score for person j and the true theta score for person j. Mean bias was computed as The RMSE was computed as The correlation between estimated and true theta was computed as where and are the standard errors for the estimated and true theta values, respectively. In any particular condition in CAT and ca MST simulations, each overall statistic was calculated separately for each iteration across the 4,000 examinees, and then averaged acr oss 100 replications. In addition, factorial ANOVA procedures were conducted to examine the statistically significant and moderately to large sized patterns among the simulation factors on these three outcomes. This was done separately for each outcome wit h the three study factors (3 7 ) (3 8) (3 9 )

PAGE 60

60 (e.g., type of test administration CAT vs 1 3 ca MST vs 1 3 3 ca MST, test length and number of content area) as fully crossed independent variables. For consistency, always the interaction of test administration model and conten t condition was plotted within each level test length. For conditional result, conditional standard error of measurement (CSEM) was calculated. The CSEM was observed between = 2 and = 2, and the width of the interval was 0.2 CSEM for a theta point was computed as It should be noted that the CSEM is the inverse of the square root of total test information at an estimated theta point . (3 10 )

PAGE 61

61 Table 3 1 I tem parameters of each content area in the original item bank Content Area a b c (Number of items) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Content 1 ( n = 48 ) 1.015 .292 .485 .465 .154 .044 Content 2 ( n =168 ) .911 .3 22 131 977 .160 .054 Content 3 ( n = 24 ) 1.028 .328 .811 .778 .173 .059 Content 4 ( n = 96 ) 1.120 .419 .689 .655 .167 .058 Content 5 ( n = 96 ) 1.037 .356 .527 .650 .151 .062 Content 6 ( n = 48 ) .911 .312 .475 .828 .163 .058

PAGE 62

62 Table 3 2 I tem parameters of each content area in item bank 1 Content Area a b c (Number of items) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Content 1 ( n =300) 1.015 .292 .485 .465 .154 .044 Content 2 ( n =300) .911 .312 .475 .828 .163 .058

PAGE 63

63 Table 3 3 Distribution of items across the contents areas and test lengths in CAT Test Length Content Condition Content Areas Target Proportions Corresponding Number of Items 24 item CAT Two Content C 1 ,C 2 50%,50% 12,12 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 25%,25%,25%25% 6,6,6,6 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 16.6%,16.6%,16.6%, 16.6%,16.6%,16.6% 4,4,4,4,4,4 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 12.5%,12.5%,12.5%,12.5%, 12.5%,12.5%,12.5%,12.5% 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 48 item CAT Two Content C 1 ,C 2 50%,50% 24,24 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 25%,25%,25%25% 12,12,12,12 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 16.6%,16.6%,16.6%, 16.6%,16.6%,16.6% 8,8,8,8,8,8 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 12.5%,12.5%,12.5%,12.5%, 12.5%,12.5%,12.5%,12.5% 6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6

PAGE 64

64 Table 3 4 The distribution of items in modules in ca MST across the content areas under 24 item test length Content Condition Content Area Routing Modules Stage 2 Modules Stage 3 Modules Total 1 3 Panel Design Two Content C 1 ,C 2 6,6 6,6 24 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 3,3,3,3 3,3,3,3 24 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 2,2,2,2,2,2 2,2,2,2,2,2 24 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1 1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2 24 1 3 3 Panel Design Two Content C 1 ,C 2 4,4 4,4 4,4 24 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 2,2,2,2 2,2,2,2 2,2,2,2 24 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 2,2,1,1,1,1 1,1,2,2,1,1 1,1,1,1,2,2 24 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 24

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 5 The distribution of items in modules in ca MSTs across the content areas in under 48 item test length Content Condition Content Area Routing Modules Stage 2 Modules Stage 3 Modules Total 1 3 Panel Design Two Content C 1 ,C 2 12,12 12,12 48 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 6,6,6,6 6,6,6,6 48 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 4,4,4,4,4,4 4,4,4,4,4,4 48 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 48 1 3 3 Panel Design Two Content C 1 ,C 2 8,8 8,8 8,8 48 Four Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 4,4,4,4 4,4,4,4 4,4,4,4 48 Six Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 4,4,2,2,2,2 2,2,4,4,2,2 2,2,2,2,4,4 48 Eight Content C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ,C 4 ,C 5 ,C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 48

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3 1 Total information functions for four item banks.

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this chapter, the results of this study are presented in two sections. The first section describes the overall findings (e.g., mean bias, RMSE, correlations between the estimated and true theta values), and the second section describes the conditional r esults (e.g., CSEM, conditional mean bias). Overall Results Mean Bias The results of mean bias across the conditions were presented in Table 4 1 To assess for statistically significant patterns, a factorial ANOVA was conducted with mean bias as the outco me and the three study factors (e.g., test administration model, test length, number of content area) as the independent variables. The results for factorial ANOVA were presented in Table 4 2 The main effect of test administration expl ained the largest p roportion of mean bias variance ( 2 =. 17) controlling for all other factors. The interactions or other main effects were either non significant or explained very small proportion of variance. A g raphical depiction of the main effect of test administration within each level of test length on the mean bias is displayed in Figure 4 1 The main finding was that regardless of the number of content area and test length, CAT produced lower amount of mean bias than the two ca main effect of test administration. Another finding was that the 1 3 and the 1 3 3 panel designs resulted in very similar mean bias. However, the test length did not impact the mean bias across the conditions.

PAGE 68

68 Root M ean S quare E rror The results of RMSE across the conditi ons were presented in Table 4 3. To assess for statistically significant patterns, a factorial ANOVA was conducted with RMSE as the outcome and the three study factors (e.g., test administration model, test length, number of content area) as the independen t variables. The results for factorial ANOVA were presented in Table 4 4 The interaction of test administration model and test length expl ained a meaningful proportion of RMSE variance ( 2 =. 05 ) as did the main effect of test length ( 2 =. 18). A g raphical depiction of the interaction of test administration model and test length within each level of number of content area on the RMSE is displayed in Figure 4 2 The main finding was that regardless of the number of content area and test administratio n model, as the test length increased, the amount of RMSE decreased. Also, the decrease in RMSE associated with the increase in test length was almost always more obvious for CAT, which caused the significant two way interaction of test administration and test length The varying ca MST panel designs did not impact the amount of RMSE w ithin each level of test length as well as the number of content area. Correlation The results of correlation between the true and estimated theta values across the conditions were presented in Table 4 5 To assess for statistically significant patterns, a factorial ANOVA was conducted with correlation as the outcome and the three study factors (e.g., test administration model, test length, number of content area) as the indepe ndent variables. The results for factorial ANOVA were presented in Table 4 6 The main effect of test administration and test length expl ained the largest proportion of correlation variance ( 2 =. 35) controlling for all other factors. The interactions or other main effects were either non significant or explained very small proportion of variance. A g raphical

PAGE 69

69 depiction of the main effect of test administration model within each level of test length on the correlations is displayed in Fi gure 4 3 The main finding was that regardless of the number of content area and test administration model, as the test length increased, correlation between the true and estimated thetas increased, which caused significant main effect of test length. Anot her main finding was that regardless of the number of content area and test length, the correlations were always lower under CAT, which caused significant main effect of test administration model. However, the number of content area did not impact the corr elations. The varying ca MST panel designs did not impact the correlations within each level of test length as well. Conditional Conditional s tandard e rror of m easurement Results of standard error of measurement conditioned on the estimated theta values a cross the two different test lengths and three different are displayed in Figure 4 4. First finding was that standard error of measurements were always increased stand ard error of measurements throughout the estimated theta points decreased for all test administration mod els. Third finding was that standard error of measurements for the two ca MST conditions were more stable (m ore consistent ) than CAT, regardless of the test length. Fourth finding was that even though the fluctuations were greater for CAT, CAT resulted in lower standard error of measurements throughout the estimated theta points. However, the number of content area did not substantially impact the standa rd error of measurements within a particular condition, and the interpretations were always similar across the number of content area conditions.

PAGE 70

70 Tabl e 4 1 Results of mean bias across the conditions Design Test Length No Control 2 Content 4 Content 6 Content 8 Content 1 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 1 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 1 3 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.07 1 3 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 CAT 24 i tem 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CAT 48 item 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PAGE 71

71 Tabl e 4 2 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was mean bias Dependent Variable p 2 Test Administration x Number of Content x Test Length .15 .00 Test Administration x Number of Content .04 .00 Test Administration x Test Length .22 .00 Number of Content x Test Length .25 .00 Test Administration .00 .17 Number of Content .05 .00 Test Length .61 .00

PAGE 72

72 Tabl e 4 3 Results of RMSE across the conditions Design Test Length No Control 2 Content 4 Content 6 Content 8 Content 1 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.34 1 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.30 1 3 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 1 3 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 CAT 24 i tem 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.36 CAT 48 item 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29

PAGE 73

73 Tabl e 4 4 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was RMSE Dependent Variable p 2 Test Administration x Number of Content x Test Length .04 .00 Test Administration x Number of Content .48 .00 Test Administration x Test Length .00 .05 Number of Content x Test Length .38 .00 Test Administration .06 .00 Number of Content .00 .02 Test Length .00 .18

PAGE 74

74 Tabl e 4 5 Correlation coefficients between true and estimated thetas a cross the c onditions Design Test Length No Control 2 Content 4 Content 6 Content 8 Content 1 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1 3 3 ca M ST 24 item 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 3 3 ca M ST 48 item 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 CAT 24 i tem 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 CAT 48 item 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

PAGE 75

75 Tabl e 4 6 Factorial ANOVA findings when dependent variable was correlation Dependent Variable p 2 Test Administration x Number of Content x Test Length .12 .00 Test Administration x Number of Content .04 .00 Test Administration x Test Length .00 .02 Number of Content x Test Length .00 .00 Test Administration .00 .35 Number of Content .00 .00 Test Length .00 .35

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 1. Main effect of test administration model on mean bias within levels of test length.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 2. Interaction of test administration model and test length on RMSE within levels of number of content.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 3. Main effect of test administration model on correlation within levels of test length.

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 4. Conditional standard error of measurements

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS The main purpose of this study was to explore the pr ecision of test outcomes across computerized adaptive testing and computerized multistage testing when the number of different content areas was varied across the different test lengths. It was important to examine this because content balancing and conten t alignment is a requirement for validity of score based inferences (Messick, 1989; Wise, & Kingsbury, 2015). In real applications, item pools most often have items from multiple content areas, and deal ing with content control might not be easy in adaptive testing (Wise & Kingsbury, 2015 ). However, t he consequences of not ensuring content balancing can have potential negative effects on the test use and score interpretations. Hence, this study added to the literature on content control in adaptive testing a nd, more specifically, aimed to provide guidelines about the relative strengths and weaknesses of ca MST as compared to CAT with respect to content control. I t is important to note that the content itself cannot be generated in a simulation study. Rather, item parameters are generated and used to represent different content areas. I n this study, we defined a conte nt area as a group of items, which belong to a specific sub curriculum of the test such as fractions, algebra or calculus. However, w hen generating these content area s we used a particular range of item parameters to repres ent such sub curriculum sections of the test. This process has limitations, but is similar to approaches in other similar simulation studies (see Armstrong et al., 1996; Luecht, 1991). The results showed that in terms of mean bias, CAT produced slightly better results than two ca MSTs. This was the only meaningful finding, and other study factors did not have substantial impact on the mean bias (see Table 4 2 and Figure 4 1 ). In terms of RMSE, only test length had meaningful impact on the outcome (see Table 4 4 ); increasing test length improved

PAGE 81

81 the outcome (see Figure 4 2 ). In terms of correlations between the true and estimated theta values, both test length and type of test administration played impo rtant role on the outcome (see Table 4 6 ). The two ca MSTs produced very comparab le results and outperformed CAT. Furthermore, increasing test length improved the outcome of correlation (see Figure 4 1 ) However, it is import ant note that low correlation does not mean results are poor er for CAT. As it is seen in the Figure 4 4 the fluctuations in the conditional standard error of measurements were greater for CAT than that for the two ca MSTs. This was the reason behind the l ower correlations under CAT. Even if the two ca MSTs provided more stable standard error of measurements across the different theta values (much flatter), CAT produced lower standard error of measurements than the two ca MSTs (see Figure 4 3 and Figure 4 4 ). The effect of test length was more obvious when the standard error of measurements were plotted against the theta values (see Figure 4 4 ). T his study did not find any evidence of the effect of content area o n both CAT and ca MSTs. Increasing the number of controlled content area s or having no control over content did not meaningfully affect any of the study outcomes. A ll three test administration models were able to find items which provide the most information from different content ar eas, regardless o f the number of content condition s For practitioners and researchers, this is an indication that the studied CAT and ca MST methods are not unduly influenced by the number of content areas one might have on a test. Thus, t his is a positive finding for the pract itioners and researchers as CAT or ca MST designers do not need to worry about the number of content area s This study found that there was no meaningful difference on the outcomes between the two ca MST panel designs, but CAT outperformed the ca MST s under many conditions T his study however does not argue against the ca MSTs Even though these were outside of the

PAGE 82

82 primar y purpose of this study, the ca MSTs have several practical advantages in real applications First, d ue to the feature of test assem bly, even if the measurement precision is lower in ca MSTs then CAT all other parameters being equal, the ca MST allows great er control over test design and content. The ca MST designers can determine item and content order within modules in ca MST T here is however no expert control over relative item order in CAT. Second since items in the modules are placed by the test developer prior to the administration, ca MST allows for strict adherence to content specification, no matter how complex it is ( Ya n et al., 2014 ). However, in CAT content misspecification s are more likely to occur ( see Leung et al., 2003 ). Third, ca MST allows adding other constraints on placing items into the modules, such as item length and format This means that the length of it ems in different modules and panels can easily be controlled in ca MST whereas not traditionally controlled Fourth ca MST allow ed higher percentage of item pool use over CAT. In 1 3 ca MST condition, item pool usage rates were 40% and 80% under 24 and 48 item test lengths, respectively. In 1 3 3 ca MST condition, item pool usage rates were 46.6% and 93.3% under 24 and 48 item test lengths, respectively. However, pool usage rates for CAT were about 36% and 64% under 24 and 48 item test lengths, respectivel y. Fifth issue is item retirement for cost. As stated before, the cost for a single item varies from $1,500 to $2,500 (Rudner, 2009) Besides the high pool usage rate, having less number of retired items is desired because researchers and practitioners do not want to throw many items away after each administration. In ca MST only the items in the routing modu les reach pre specified maximum control rate and are then retired for use. In 1 3 ca MST, the number of items with maximum exposure rates were 48 (e.g ., 12 items per a routing module in a panel x 4 different panels) and 96 (e.g., 24 items per a routing module in a panel x 4 different panels) under 24 and 48 item length conditions, respectively. In 1 3 3 ca MST, the

PAGE 83

83 number of items with maximum exposure rates were 32 (e.g., 8 items per a routing module in a panel x 4 different panels) and 64 (e.g., 16 items per a routing module in a panel x 4 different panels) under 24 and 48 item length conditions, re spectively. In CAT, the number of items with maximum e xposure rates were 47 and 105 under 24 and 48 item length conditions, respectively. Apparently, the 1 3 3 ca MST resulted in the lowest number of items with maximum exposure rate As a result, fewer items were retired for use. In fact, this number could be further reduced by placing less items into the routing modules and thus more items can be s aved for future administrations. This characteristic is another advantage of ca MST over CAT. A further research can investigate item pool utilization under varying conditions such as item bank size, quality of item bank, different ca MST panel designs and varying level of number of items in the routing module. It is necessary to note that, for a f air comparison overuse of some items in the bank was more likely due to the nature of maximum fisher information item selection method in CAT This method always selects best item s multiple time for different examinees until an item reaches the exposure r ate, which reduces item pool usage and increase s number of retired items. This could be controlled with a different item selection method. This study argues that although ca MST allows great er flexibility over the content control, there was a reduction in measurement efficiency. This is not surprising because of the lack of adaptation points. In ca MST, the number of adaptation points is associated with the number of stages (e.g., one minus number of stages) whereas it is associated with number of item s i n CAT (e.g., one minus number of items) For example, in 1 3 and 1 3 3 ca MST panel designs, there w as one and two adaptation points regardless of the test length, respectively. In CAT, there were 23 and 47 adaptation points under 24 and 48 item test lengt h conditions, respectively.

PAGE 84

84 In this study, we set the test length equal across the CAT and ca MST simulations and investigated measurement accuracy as an outcome However, measurement accuracy outcomes (e.g., standard error of measurement) are often used as stopping rules in CAT. In this study, ca MST conditions were associated with a reduction in measurement accuracy as compared to CAT. However, if measurement accuracy were to be used as a stopping rule, we expect the outcomes to be quite different. It se ems quite plausible that with this different type of stopping rule, CAT and ca MST would have the same measurement accuracy outcomes but would differ in the test lengths needed to obtain those outcomes. In sum mary the restriction of equal test length and the choice of stopping rule in this study had large impacts on the outc omes. Future studies may change and/or vary these conditions to explore outcomes across both test administration models. In order to give similar advantage to both CAT and ca MSTs, we intentionally used maximum F isher information method as an item selection and a routing method, for CAT and ca MST, respectively However, this study can be improved with running the same simulation by adopting other item selections and routing methods. Ad ditionally, in order to avoid content difficulty confounding, we systematically chose two content areas as one easy and one hard content area. However, in real applications this will not likely happen and test content might have wider and non systematic range s of contents areas in terms of difficulty (e.g., a few easy, several medium, and many hard content areas ) We recommend the studied conditions to be tested with a real test administration that does not have systematic difficulty differences ac ross co ntent areas I n a particular number of content condition s there were equal number of items from different content areas. This study should also be replicated with unequal content distributions. Furthermore, even though the main purpose of this study was t o examine the effect of the content control across adaptive testing, a further study should include linear test, and use it

PAGE 85

85 as a baseline condition when comparing with CAT and ca MST. A further study can also be replicated with different exposure rate s and item bank size s. Additionally, i t is known that items form a content area do not only measure that content, but also measure other content domains with possibly small loadings. In other words, the assumption of unidimensionality is rarely met in real appl ications ( Lau, 1997 ; Reckase, 1979 ).

PAGE 86

86 LIST OF REFERENCES American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Angoff, W. H., & Huddleston, E. M. (1958). The multi level experiment: a study of a two level test system for the College Board Scholastic Aptitude Tes t. Princeton, New Jersey, Educational Testing Service Statistical Report SR 58 21. Armstrong, R. D. & L. Roussos. (2005). A method to determine targets for multi stage adaptive tests. (Research Report 02 07). Newtown, PA: Law School Admissions Council. Ar mstrong, R. D., Jones, D. H., Koppel, N. B., & Pashley, P. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing with multiple form structures. Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (3), 147 164. Armstrong, R. D., Jones, D. H., Li, X., & Wu, L. (1996). A study of a ne twork flow algorithm and a noncorrecting algorithm for test assembly. Applied Psychological Measurement 20 (1), 89 98. Babcock, B. & Weiss, D. J. (2009). Termination criteria in computerized adaptive tests: Variable length CATs are not biased. In D. J. Wei ss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing Baker, F. (1992). Item response theory New York, NY: Markel Dekker, INC. Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., and Abad, F. J. (2008). Incorporating randomness to the Fis her information for improving item exposure control in CATS. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 61 493 513. Becker, K. A., & Bergstrom, B. A. (2013). Test administration models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18 (14), 7. Belov, D. I., & Armstrong, R. D. (2005). Monte Carlo test assembly for item pool analysis and extension. Applied Psychological Measurement 29 (4), 239 261. Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. E. (1999). CAT for certification and licensure. Innovations in comp uterized assessment 67 91. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick. In statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397 479). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Bock, R. D ., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied psychological measurement 6 (4), 431 444.

PAGE 87

87 Boyle, M., Jones, P., & Matthews Lopez, J. (Feb, 2012). Replacing an Adaptive Decision Making Test with a Palle t of Automatically Assembled Fixed Forms. Breakout Session at Association of Test Publishers Conference, Palm Springs, CA. Bridgeman, B. (2012). A Simple Answer to a Simple Question on Changing Answers. Journal of Educational Measurement 49 (4), 467 468. Brown, J. M., & Weiss, D. J. (1977). An adaptive testing strategy for achievement test batteries (Research Rep. No. 77 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laborator y. Chang, H. H., & Ying, Z. (1999). A stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement 23 (3), 211 222. Chang, H.H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychologi cal Measurement, 20 213 229. Chang, S.W., & Ansley, T. N. (2003). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 40 71 103. Chen, Y., & Ankenman, R. D. (2004). Effects of practic al constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 41 (2), 149 174. Cheng, Y., & Chang, H. H. (2009). The maximum priority index method for severely constrained item selection in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 62 (2), 369 383. Choi, S. W., Grady, M. W., & Dodd, B. G. (2010). A New Stopping Rule for Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement 70 (6), 1 17. Chuah, S. C., Drasgow, F., & Luecht, R. (2006). How big is big enough? Sample size requirements for CAST item parameter estimation. Applied Measurement in Education 19 (3), 241 255. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement, (2nd ed., pp. 443 507). Washington DC: American Council on Education. Cronbach, L. J., & Glaser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Crotts, K. M., Zenisky, A. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2012, April). Estimating measurement precision in reduced length multistage adaptive testing. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

PAGE 88

88 Davey, T., & Y.H. Lee. (2011). Potential impact of context effects on the scoring and equating of the multistage GRE Revised General Test. (GRE Board Research Report 08 01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Davis, L. L., & Dodd, B. G. (2003). Item Exposure Constraints for Testlets in the Verbal Reasoning Section of the MCAT. Applied Psychological Measurement 27 (5), 335 356. Dubois, P. H. (1970). A history of psychological testing Boston: Allyn & Bacon Eggen, T. J. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement 23 (3), 249 261. Eignor, D. R., Stocking, M. L., Way, W. D., & Steffen, M. ( 1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation. ETS Research Report Series 1993 (2). Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flaugher, R. (2000). Item Pools. In Wainer, H. (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Georgiadou, E. G., Triantafillou, E., & Economides, A. A. (2007). A review of item exposure control strategies for computerized adaptive testing developed from 1983 to 2005. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment 5 (8). Gibson, W. M., & Weiner, J. A. (1998). Generating random parallel test forms using CTT in computer based environment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35 (4), 297 310. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12 (3), 3847. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media. Hambleton, R. K., & Xing, D. (2006). Optimal and nonoptimal computer based test designs for making pass fail decisions. Applied Measurement in Education 19 (3), 221 2 39. Han, K. C. T., & Guo, F. (2014). Multistage Testing by Shaping Modules on the Fly. In D. Yan, A. A. von Davier, & C. Lewis (Eds.), Computerized Multistage Testing: Theory and Applications (pp. 119 133). Chapman and Hall/CRC. Hendrickson, A. (2007). An NCME instructional module on multistage testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 26 (2), 44 52. Huang, S. X. (1996, January). A content balanced adaptive testing algorithm for computer based training systems. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (p p. 306 314). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

PAGE 89

89 Jodoin, M. G. (2003). Psychometric properties of several computer based test designs with ideal and constrained item pools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing 27 (2), 177. Keller, L. A. (2000). Ability estimation procedures in computerized adaptive testing. USA: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants AICPA Research Concortium Examination Teams Keng, L. & Dodd, B.G. (2009, April). A comparison of the performance of testlet based computer adaptive tests and multistage tests Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Me asurement in Education, San Diego, CA. Keng, L. (2008). A comparison of the performance of testlet based computer adaptive tests and multistage tests (Order No. 3315089). Kim, H., & Plake, B. S. (1993, April). Monte Carlo simulation comparison of two stag e testing and computerized adaptive testing Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta, GA. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education 2 (4), 359 375. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education 4 (3), 241 261. Lau, C. M. A. (1997). Robustness of a Unidimensional Computerized Mastery Testing Procedure With Multidimensional Testing Data. Dissertation Abstract International, 57 (7). Leung, C.K., Chang, H.H., & Hau, K.T. (2000, April). Content balancing in stratified computerized adaptive testing designs Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. 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. Leung, C.K., Chang, H.H., & Hau, K.T. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing: A comparison of three content balancing methods. Journal of Technology, Lea rning, and Assessment 2 (5). Lewis, C., & Sheehan, K. (1990). Using Bayesian decision theory to design a computerized mastery test. Applied Psychological Measurement 14 (4), 367 386.

PAGE 90

90 Linn, R. L., Rock, D. A., & Cleary, T. A. (1969). The development and e valuation of several programmed testing methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement 29 (1), 129 146. Lord, F. M. (1971). A theoretical study of two stage testing. Psychometrika, 36, 227 242. Lord, F. M. (1974). Practical methods for redesigning a h omogeneous test, also for designing a multilevel test. Educational Testing Service RB 74 30. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lord, F. M. (1986). Ma ximum likelihood and Bayesian parameter estimation in item response theory. Journal of Educational Measuremen t, 23 157 162. Lord, F. M., & M. R. Novick. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Luecht, R. M. & Sire ci, S. G. (2011). A review of models for computer based testing. Research Report RR 2011 12. New York: The College Board. Luecht, R. M. (1991). [American College Testing Program : Experimental item pool parameters.] Unpublished raw data. Luecht, R. M. (19 98). Computer assisted test assembly using optimization heuristics. Applied Psychological Measurement 22 (3), 224 236. Luecht, R. M. (2000, April). Implementing the computer adaptive sequential testing (CAST) framework to mass produce high quality computer adaptive and mastery tests Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA. Luecht, R. M. (2003, April). E xposure control using adaptive multi stage item bundles Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. Luecht, R. M., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Some Practical Examples of Computer Adaptive Sequential Testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 35 (3), 229 249. Luecht, R. M., B rumfield T., & Breithaupt, K. (2006). A testlet assembly design for adaptive multistage tests Applied Measurement in Education, 19 189 202. Luecht, R. M., de Champlain, A., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Maintaining content validity in computerized adaptive testing. Advances in Health Sciences Education 3 (1), 29 41. Luecht, R. M., Nungester, R.J., & Hadadi, A. (1996, April). Heuristic based CAT: Balancing item information, content and exposure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New York.

PAGE 91

91 McBride, J. R., & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. New horizons in testing 223 236. Mead, A. D. (2006). An introduction to multistage testing. Applied Mea surement in Education 19 (3), 185 187. Messick S. (1989) in Educational Measurement Validity, ed Linn RL (American Council on Education/Macmillan, New York), 3rd ed, p. 13 103. Owen, R. J. (1975). A Bayesian sequential procedure for quantal response in the context of adaptive mental testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70 351 356. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J., Kalohn, J., Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerat ions in computer based testing. New York: Springer Verlag. Patsula, L. N. & Hambleton, R.K. (1999, April). A comparative study of ability estimates from computer adaptive testing and multi stage testing Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Nationa l Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Quebec. Patsula, L. N. (1999). A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and multistage testing (Order No. 9950199). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304514969) R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, reference index (Version 2.2.1). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R project.org Rasch G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests Copenhagen: Danish Institute of Educational Research. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor Latent Trait Models Applied to Multifactor Tests: Results and Implications. Journal of Educational Statistics 4( 3 ), 207 230. Reckase, M. D. (1981). The formation of homogeneous item sets when guessing is a factor in item responses Retrieved from http://search.proque st.com/docview/87952861?accountid=10920 Reese, L. M., & Schnipke, D. L (1999). A comparison of] testlet based test designs for computerized adaptive testing. Law school admission council computerized testing report. LSAC research report series. (No. LSAC R 97 01). Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 35 (4), 311 327. Rudner, L. M. (2009). Implementing the graduate management admission test comp uterized adaptive test. In Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 151 165). Springer New York.

PAGE 92

92 Schnipke, D. L., & Reese, L. M. (1999). A Comparison [of] Testlet Based Test Designs for Computerized Adaptive Testing. Law School Admission Council Computerized Testing Report. LSAC Research Report Series. Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika 61 (2), 331 354. Segall, D. O. (2005). Computerized adaptive testing. Encyclopedia of social measurement 1 429 438. Sireci, S. G. (2007). O n validity theory and test validation. Educational Researcher 36 (8), 477 481. Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2006). Multistage Testing: Widely or Narrowly Applicable? Applied Measurement in Education 19 (3), 257 260. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (199 3). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement 17 (3), 277 292. Stocking, M.L., Smith, R., & Swanson, L. (2000). An investigation of approaches to computerizing the GRE subject tests. Research Re port 00 04. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985). Controlling item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973 977). T hissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 101 133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, N. A. (2008). A Proposed Framework of Test Administration Methods. Journ al of Applied Testing Technology 9 (5), 1 17. van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1 25). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. van der Linden, W.J. & Chang, H.H. (2005, August). Implementing content constraints in alpha stratified adaptive testing using a shadow test approach. Law School Admission Council, Computerized Testing Report (01 09). van der Linden, W.J., Jeon, M., & Ferrara, S. (2011). A paradox in the study of the benefits of test item review. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48 (4), 380 398.

PAGE 93

93 Veerkamp, W. J., & Berger, M. P. (1994). Some New Item Selection Criteria for Adaptive Testing. Research Report 94 6. Enschede: University of Twente, Faculty of Educatio nal Science and Technology. Veldkamp, B. P., & van der Linden, W. J. (2002). Multidimensional adaptive testing with constraints on test content. Psychometrika 67 (4), 575 588. Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1987). Estimating ability with the wrong model. Journ al of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 12 (4), 339 368. Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer Routledge. Wang, T., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estima tion methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 35 (2), 109 135. Wang, X., L. Fluegge, & Luecht, R.M. (2012, April). A large scale comparative study of the accuracy and efficiency of ca MST panel design configurations Pa per presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Ward, W. C. (1988). The College Board Computerized Placement Tests: An Application of Computerized Adaptive Testing. Machine Mediated Learning 2 271 82. Weiss, D. J. (1973). The stratified adaptive computerized ability test (Research Report 73 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program. Weiss, D. J., & Betz, N. E. (1974). Simulation Studies of Two Stage Ability Testing (No. RR 74 4). M innesota Univ Minneapolis Dept o f Psychology Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement 21 (4), 361 375. Weissman, A., Belov, D.I., & Armstrong, R.D. (2007). Information based versus number correct routing in multistage classification tests. (Research Report RR 07 05). Newtown, PA: Law School Admissions Council. Wise, S. L., Kingsbury, G. G., & Webb, N. L. (2 015). Evaluating Content Alignment in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 34 (4), 41 48. Yan, D., von Davier, A. A., & Lewis, C. (Eds.). (2014). Computerized multistage testing: Theory and applications CRC Press. Yi Q., Wang, T., & Ban, J.C. (2001). Effects of scale transformation and test termination rule on the precision of ability estimation in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 38 267 292.

PAGE 94

94 Yi, Q., Zhang, J., & Chang, H. H. (2006) Assessing CAT Test Security Severity. Applied psychological measurement 30 (1), 62 63. Zara, A. R. (1989). A research proposal for field testing CAT for nursing licensure examinations. Delegate Assembly Book of Reports Zenisky, A. L. (2004). Evaluating the effects of several multi stage testing design variables on selected psychometric outcomes for certification and licensure assessment (Order No. 3136800). Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Luecht R. M. (2010). Multistage testing: Issues, designs, and research. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 355 372). New York: Springer. Zheng, Y., Nozawa, Y., Gao, X., & Chang, H. H. (2012). Multistage Adaptive T esting for a Large Scale Classification Test: Design, Heuristic Assembly, and Comparison with Other Testing Modes. ACT Research Report Series, 2012 (6). ACT, 500 ACT Drive, P.O. Box 168, Iowa City, IA.

PAGE 95

95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Halil Ibrahim Sari was b orn in Kutahya, Turkey. He received his B.A. in mathematics education from Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey. He later qualified for a scholarship to study abroad and in the fall of 2009, enrolled for graduate studies in the Department of Human Develop ment and Organ izational Studies in Education at the University of Florida He received his M.A.E in research and evaluation methodology from the Department of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education in August, 2013. He did his PhD in the same program.