检测考生对项目预知识的方法比较

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Testing Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886
Xi Wang, Yang Liu, F. Robin, Hongwen Guo
{"title":"检测考生对项目预知识的方法比较","authors":"Xi Wang, Yang Liu, F. Robin, Hongwen Guo","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an on-demand testing program, some items are repeatedly used across test administrations. This poses a risk to test security. In this study, we considered a scenario wherein a test was divided into two subsets: one consisting of secure items and the other consisting of possibly compromised items. In a simulation study of multistage adaptive testing, we used three methods to detect item preknowledge: a predictive checking method (PCM), a likelihood ratio test (LRT), and an adapted Kullback–Leibler divergence (KLD-A) test. We manipulated four factors: the proportion of compromised items, the stage of adaptive testing at which preknowledge was present, item-parameter estimation error, and the information contained in secure items. The type I error results indicated that the LRT and PCM methods are favored over the KLD-A method because the KLD-A can experience large inflated type I error in many conditions. In regard to power, the LRT and PCM methods displayed a wide range of results, generally from 0.2 to 0.8, depending on the amount of preknowledge and the stage of adaptive testing at which the preknowledge was present.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Examinee Preknowledge of Items\",\"authors\":\"Xi Wang, Yang Liu, F. Robin, Hongwen Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an on-demand testing program, some items are repeatedly used across test administrations. This poses a risk to test security. In this study, we considered a scenario wherein a test was divided into two subsets: one consisting of secure items and the other consisting of possibly compromised items. In a simulation study of multistage adaptive testing, we used three methods to detect item preknowledge: a predictive checking method (PCM), a likelihood ratio test (LRT), and an adapted Kullback–Leibler divergence (KLD-A) test. We manipulated four factors: the proportion of compromised items, the stage of adaptive testing at which preknowledge was present, item-parameter estimation error, and the information contained in secure items. The type I error results indicated that the LRT and PCM methods are favored over the KLD-A method because the KLD-A can experience large inflated type I error in many conditions. In regard to power, the LRT and PCM methods displayed a wide range of results, generally from 0.2 to 0.8, depending on the amount of preknowledge and the stage of adaptive testing at which the preknowledge was present.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2019.1610886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在按需测试程序中,有些项目会在测试管理中重复使用。这对测试安全性构成了风险。在这项研究中,我们考虑了一种场景,其中测试被分为两个子集:一个子集由安全项目组成,另一个子集可能由受损项目组成。在一项多阶段自适应测试的模拟研究中,我们使用了三种方法来检测项目先验知识:预测检验方法(PCM)、似然比测试(LRT)和自适应Kullback–Leibler散度(KLD-a)测试。我们操纵了四个因素:受损项目的比例、存在先验知识的自适应测试阶段、项目参数估计误差以及安全项目中包含的信息。I型误差结果表明,LRT和PCM方法比KLD-A方法更受青睐,因为KLD-A在许多条件下都会经历较大的I型膨胀误差。关于功率,LRT和PCM方法显示了广泛的结果,通常从0.2到0.8,这取决于预知识的数量和存在预知识的自适应测试阶段。
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
A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Examinee Preknowledge of Items
In an on-demand testing program, some items are repeatedly used across test administrations. This poses a risk to test security. In this study, we considered a scenario wherein a test was divided into two subsets: one consisting of secure items and the other consisting of possibly compromised items. In a simulation study of multistage adaptive testing, we used three methods to detect item preknowledge: a predictive checking method (PCM), a likelihood ratio test (LRT), and an adapted Kullback–Leibler divergence (KLD-A) test. We manipulated four factors: the proportion of compromised items, the stage of adaptive testing at which preknowledge was present, item-parameter estimation error, and the information contained in secure items. The type I error results indicated that the LRT and PCM methods are favored over the KLD-A method because the KLD-A can experience large inflated type I error in many conditions. In regard to power, the LRT and PCM methods displayed a wide range of results, generally from 0.2 to 0.8, depending on the amount of preknowledge and the stage of adaptive testing at which the preknowledge was present.
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
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Combining Mokken Scale Analysis with and rasch measurement theory to explore differences in measurement quality between subgroups Examining the construct validity of the MIDUS version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Where nonresponse is at its loudest: Cross-country and individual differences in item nonresponse across the PISA 2018 student questionnaire The choice between cognitive diagnosis and item response theory: A case study from medical education Beyond group comparisons: Accounting for intersectional sources of bias in international survey measures
×
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