Implementing the Graduate Management Admission Test Computerized Adaptive Test

  • Lawrence M. Rudner
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)


Wise and Kingsbury (2000) argue that the success of an adaptive testing program is a function of how well the various practical issues are addressed. Decisions must be made with regard to test specifications, item selection algorithms, pool design and rotation, ability estimation, pretesting, item analysis, database design, and data security. The test sponsor is ultimately responsible for each of these decisions and must work closely with the vendor to assure that the sponsor interests are met.


Propensity Score Differential Item Functioning Item Parameter Item Bank Test Taker 
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. Bridgeman, B., Wightman, L. & Anderson D. (n.d.). GMAT comparability study [Internal Administrative Report]. McLean, VA: GMAC.Google Scholar
  2. Georgiadou, E., Triantafillou, E. & Economides, A. A. (2006). Evaluation parameters for computer adaptive testing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Green, B., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L., Linn, R. & Reckase, M. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guo, F., Rudner, L., Owens, K. & Talento-Miller, E. (2006, July). Differential impact as an item bias indicator in CAT. Paper presented at the International Testing Commission 5th International Conference on Psychological and Educational Test Adaptation across Language and Cultures, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  5. Guo, F. & Wang, L. (2005). Evaluating scale stability of a computer adaptive testing system [Research Report RR 05-12]. McLean, VA: GMAC.Google Scholar
  6. Kingsbury, G. & Zara, A. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. McBride, J. R. & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 223–236). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C. & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Plake, B. P. (1996). A review of the comparability study design [Internal Administrative Report]. McLean, VA: GMAC.Google Scholar
  11. Rosenbaum P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 757–763.Google Scholar
  13. Rudner, L. M. (2005). Examinees retaking the Graduate Management Admission Test [Research Report RR-05-01]. McLean, VA: GMAC.Google Scholar
  14. Rudner, L. M. & Peyton, J. (2006). Consider propensity scores to compare treatments. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11. (Available online: asp?v=11&n=9)
  15. Sireci, S. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sireci, S. & Talento-Miller, E. (2006). Evaluating the predictive validity of Graduate Management Admission Test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 305–317.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Stocking, M. L. & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Swanson, L. & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  20. Talento-Miller, E. (2008). Generalizability of GMAT validity to programs outside the U.S. International Journal of Testing, 8, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Talento-Miller, E. & Rudner, L. (2005). GMAT validity study summary report for 1997 to 2004 [Research Report RR-05-06]. McLean, VA: GMAC.Google Scholar
  22. Talento-Miller, E. & Rudner, L. (2008). The validity of Graduate Management Admission Test scores: A summary of studies conducted from 1997 to 2004. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 129–138.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Linden, W. J. (2005). A comparison of item-selection methods for adaptive tests with content constraints. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Linden, W. J. & Reese, L. M. (1998). A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Wainer, H., Kaplan, B. & Lewis, C. (1992). A comparison of the performance of simulated hierarchical and linear testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wainer, H. & Kiely, G. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: the case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiss, D. J. (1985). Adaptive testing by computer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 774–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wise, S. L. & Kingsbury, G. G. (2000). Practical issues in developing and maintaining a computerized adaptive testing program. Psicologica, 21, 135–155.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence M. Rudner
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Management Admission CouncilMcLeanUSA

Personalised recommendations