考试安全与大流行病:考试中心与在线监考模式的比较

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL Applied Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1177/01466216241248826
Kirk A. Becker, Jinghua Liu, Paul E. Jones
{"title":"考试安全与大流行病:考试中心与在线监考模式的比较","authors":"Kirk A. Becker, Jinghua Liu, Paul E. Jones","doi":"10.1177/01466216241248826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Published information is limited regarding the security of testing programs, and even less on the relative security of different testing modalities: in-person at test centers (TC) versus remote online proctored (OP) testing. This article begins by examining indicators of test security violations across a wide range of programs in professional, admissions, and IT fields. We look at high levels of response overlap as a potential indicator of collusion to cheat on the exam and compare rates by modality and between test center types. Next, we scrutinize indicators of potential test security violations for a single large testing program over the course of 14 months, during which the program went from exclusively in-person TC testing to a mix of OP and TC testing. Test security indicators include high response overlap, large numbers of fast correct responses, large numbers of slow correct responses, large test-retest score gains, unusually fast response times for passing candidates, and measures of differential person functioning. These indicators are examined and compared prior to and after the introduction of OP testing. In addition, test-retest modality is examined for candidates who fail and retest subsequent to the introduction of OP testing, with special attention paid to test takers who change modality between the initial attempt and the retest. These data allow us to understand whether indications of content exposure increase with the introduction of OP testing, and whether testing modalities affect potential score increase in a similar way.","PeriodicalId":48300,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychological Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test Security and the Pandemic: Comparison of Test Center and Online Proctor Delivery Modalities\",\"authors\":\"Kirk A. Becker, Jinghua Liu, Paul E. Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01466216241248826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Published information is limited regarding the security of testing programs, and even less on the relative security of different testing modalities: in-person at test centers (TC) versus remote online proctored (OP) testing. This article begins by examining indicators of test security violations across a wide range of programs in professional, admissions, and IT fields. We look at high levels of response overlap as a potential indicator of collusion to cheat on the exam and compare rates by modality and between test center types. Next, we scrutinize indicators of potential test security violations for a single large testing program over the course of 14 months, during which the program went from exclusively in-person TC testing to a mix of OP and TC testing. Test security indicators include high response overlap, large numbers of fast correct responses, large numbers of slow correct responses, large test-retest score gains, unusually fast response times for passing candidates, and measures of differential person functioning. These indicators are examined and compared prior to and after the introduction of OP testing. In addition, test-retest modality is examined for candidates who fail and retest subsequent to the introduction of OP testing, with special attention paid to test takers who change modality between the initial attempt and the retest. These data allow us to understand whether indications of content exposure increase with the introduction of OP testing, and whether testing modalities affect potential score increase in a similar way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241248826\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241248826","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关考试项目安全性的公开信息十分有限,而有关不同考试模式的相对安全性的信息则更少:在考试中心(TC)进行的现场考试与远程在线监考(OP)考试。本文首先研究了专业、招生和 IT 领域中各种测试项目的测试安全违规指标。我们将高水平的答题重叠作为串通作弊的潜在指标,并比较了不同模式和不同类型考试中心的作弊率。接下来,我们仔细研究了一个大型考试项目在 14 个月内的潜在考试安全违规指标,在此期间,该项目从完全的面对面 TC 考试转变为 OP 和 TC 混合考试。测试安全指标包括:高应答重叠率、大量快速正确应答、大量慢速正确应答、测试后得分大幅提高、及格考生异常快速的应答时间,以及差异人功能的测量。在引入 OP 测试之前和之后,对这些指标进行了研究和比较。此外,我们还对 OP 测试引入后未通过测试和重测的考生的重测方式进行了研究,特别关注了在初次测试和重测之间改变测试方式的考生。通过这些数据,我们可以了解内容暴露的迹象是否会随着 OP 测试的引入而增加,以及测试模式是否会以类似的方式影响潜在分数的增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Test Security and the Pandemic: Comparison of Test Center and Online Proctor Delivery Modalities
Published information is limited regarding the security of testing programs, and even less on the relative security of different testing modalities: in-person at test centers (TC) versus remote online proctored (OP) testing. This article begins by examining indicators of test security violations across a wide range of programs in professional, admissions, and IT fields. We look at high levels of response overlap as a potential indicator of collusion to cheat on the exam and compare rates by modality and between test center types. Next, we scrutinize indicators of potential test security violations for a single large testing program over the course of 14 months, during which the program went from exclusively in-person TC testing to a mix of OP and TC testing. Test security indicators include high response overlap, large numbers of fast correct responses, large numbers of slow correct responses, large test-retest score gains, unusually fast response times for passing candidates, and measures of differential person functioning. These indicators are examined and compared prior to and after the introduction of OP testing. In addition, test-retest modality is examined for candidates who fail and retest subsequent to the introduction of OP testing, with special attention paid to test takers who change modality between the initial attempt and the retest. These data allow us to understand whether indications of content exposure increase with the introduction of OP testing, and whether testing modalities affect potential score increase in a similar way.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Applied Psychological Measurement publishes empirical research on the application of techniques of psychological measurement to substantive problems in all areas of psychology and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Item Response Modeling of Clinical Instruments With Filter Questions: Disentangling Symptom Presence and Severity. A Note on Standard Errors for Multidimensional Two-Parameter Logistic Models Using Gaussian Variational Estimation Measurement Invariance Testing Works Accommodating and Extending Various Models for Special Effects Within the Generalized Partially Confirmatory Factor Analysis Framework Investigating Directional Invariance in an Item Response Tree Model for Extreme Response Style and Trait-Based Unfolding Responses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1