Computerized adaptive test item response times for correct and incorrect pretest and operational items: Testing fairness and test-taking strategies
by Chang, Shu-Ren, Ph.D., THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA - LINCOLN, 2007, 141 pages; 3239362

Abstract:

This study examined the amount of time spent on pretest and operational items that are answered correctly and incorrectly by different ability examinees when taking a computerized adaptive test (CAT). Consistent with other research, the results indicate that higher ability examinees spend more time than lower ability examinees on all items, regardless of whether the items are tailored to their ability level (operational items) or not (pretest items). It was expected, based on the literature, that examinees would spend more time on test questions they answered incorrectly than correctly. This was the case for most of the items, but not the ones near the end of the CAT, suggesting that examinees may not have sufficient time or motivation to devote to these items.

Seven testing fairness issues related to a CAT were addressed along with recommendations. Five test-taking strategies derived from the results were provided to help ensure testing fairness. The presence of pretesting was found either to benefit or hinder examinees depending on their ability levels due to disproportionate amounts of time and effort used by these examinees with different ability levels on these items. Generally, examinees with lower ability levels have more time remaining after they finish the test than do examinees with higher ability levels.

A design feature for a CAT that uses a time management wizard, time reminder, and pacing guidance to help examines to move through a test was proposed for future development. Finally, several recommendations to ensure testing fairness were provided for the future examiners’ manual.

 
AdviserBarbara S. Plake
SchoolTHE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA - LINCOLN
SourceDAI/A 67-10, p. , Feb 2007
Source TypeDissertation
SubjectsEducational tests & measurements; Quantitative psychology and psychometrics; Educational technology
Publication Number3239362
Adobe PDF Access the complete dissertation:
 

» Find an electronic copy at your library.
  Use the link below to access a full citation record of this graduate work:
  http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl%3furl_ver=Z39.88-2004%26res_dat=xri:pqdiss%26rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation%26rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3239362
  If your library subscribes to the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database, you may be entitled to a free electronic version of this graduate work. If not, you will have the option to purchase one, and access a 24 page preview for free (if available).

About ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
With over 2.3 million records, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database is the most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses in the world. It is the database of record for graduate research.

The database includes citations of graduate works ranging from the first U.S. dissertation, accepted in 1861, to those accepted as recently as last semester. Of the 2.3 million graduate works included in the database, ProQuest offers more than 1.9 million in full text formats. Of those, over 860,000 are available in PDF format. More than 60,000 dissertations and theses are added to the database each year.

If you have questions, please feel free to visit the ProQuest Web site - http://www.proquest.com - or call ProQuest Hotline Customer Support at 1-800-521-3042.