Sequencing an Adaptive Test Battery

  • Wim J. van der Linden
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)


Switching a testing program from a linear to an adaptive format increases its efficiency considerably. The gain in efficiency can be used to shorten the length of the test or increase the accuracy of the scores. The gain is especially relevant to testing programs in which a battery of tests has to be administered in a single session but the testing time has to remain feasible. Examples of such programs are diagnostic testing for instructional purposes (e.g., Boughton, Yao, & Lewis 2006; Yao & Boughton, 2007) and large-scale assessments of education. These programs generally involve the reporting of profiles of scores of students, schools, or districts. In order to use such profiles for decision making, each of their individual scores should have satisfactory accuracy. The more advantageous combination of testing time and score accuracy made possible by the use of a battery of adaptive instead of linear tests has been highlighted earlier, for instance, in Brown and Weiss (1977) and Giallucca andWeiss (1979).


Posterior Distribution Reading Comprehension Logical Reasoning Test Taker Item Pool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397–479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Boughton, K. A., Yao, L. & Lewis, D. M. (2006, April). Reporting diagnostic subscale scores for tests composed of complex structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. M. & Weiss, D. J. (1977). An adaptive testing strategy for achievement test batteries (Research Report 77-6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Psychometric Methods Program.Google Scholar
  4. Gialluca, K. A. & Weiss, D. J. (1979). Efficiency of an adaptive inter-subtest branching strategy in the measurement of classroom achievement (Research Report 79-6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Psychometric Methods Program.Google Scholar
  5. Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Mulder, J. & van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing with optimal design criteria for item selection. Psychometrika, 74. In press.Google Scholar
  7. Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61, 331–354.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Thissen, D. & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer, N. J. Dorans, R. Flaugher, B. F. Green, R. J. Mislevey, L. Steinberg & D. Thissen. Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 103–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63, 201–216.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Linear models for optimal test design. New York: Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. van der Linden, W. J. (2008). Using response times for item selection in adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. van der Linden, W. J. & Veldkamp, B. P. (2004). Constraining item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing with shadow tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van der Linden, W. J. & Veldkamp, B. P. (2007). Conditional item-exposure control in adaptive testing using item-ineligibility probabilities. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 398–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Veldkamp, B. P. & van der Linden, W. J. (2002). Multidimensional adaptive testing with constraints on test content. Psychometrika, 67, 575–588.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Wainer, H., Vevea, J. L., Canachi, F., Reeve III, B. B., Rosa, K., Nelson, L., Swygert, K. A. & Thissen, D. (2001). Augmented scores–“Borrowing strength” to compute scores based upon small numbers of items. In H. Wainer & D. Thissen (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 343–387). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Yao, L. & Boughton, K. A. (2007). A multidimensional item response modeling approach for improving subscale proficiency estimation and classification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 83–105.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim J. van der Linden
    • 1
  1. 1.CTB/McGraw-HillMontereyUSA

Personalised recommendations