Advertisement

Designing and Implementing a Multistage Adaptive Test: The Uniform CPA Exam

  • Gerald J. Melican
  • Krista Breithaupt
  • Yanwei Zhang
Chapter
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)

Abstract

The Uniform CPA Exam (CPA Exam) was first administered in 1917 as a requirement in the licensing of certified public accountants. It included a series of accounting problems in auditing, accounting, and commercial law that were graded by members of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Since 1917, the CPA Exam evolved to include four independently scored sections that included not only accounting problems, but essays, multiple-choice questions, and extended multiple-choice formats. Until 2004, the CPA Exam was presented twice each year, in a paper-based format. At its peak in the early 1990s, over 300,000 individual CPA Exam papers were scored each year.

Keywords

Item Bank Test Taker Item Response Theory Model Item Pool Test Question 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adema, J. J. (1990). The construction of customized two-stage tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (June 1997). Conversion of the Uniform CPA Exam to a computer-based examination. Jersey City, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants & National Association of State Boards of Accountancy Computerization Implementation Committee. (1998, October). Conversion of the Uniform CPA Exam to a computer-based examination (Status Report Briefing Paper No. 1). Jersey City, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. American Institutes for Research (2001). Practice analysis of certified public accountants[Technical Report]. Norris, Russell, Goodwin & Jessee.Google Scholar
  5. Board of Examiners (1995). Invitation to comment: Conversion of the Uniform CPA Exam to a computer-based examination. Jersey City, NJ: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Google Scholar
  6. Breithaupt, K. & Hare, D. R. (2008). Automated assembly techniques for rapidly changing test designs. Invited presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Geisinger, K. F. (1991). Using standard-setting data to establish cutoff scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hambleton, R. K. & Jones, R. W. (1993). An NCME instructional module on comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hambleton, R. K. & Pitoniak, M. J. (2002). Setting passing scores on the CBT version of the Uniform CPA Exam: Comparison of several promising methods [Unpublished report]. Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Huitzing, H. A. (2004). Using set covering with item sampling to analyze infeasibility of linear programming test assembly models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 355–375.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Huitzing, H. A., Veldkamp, B. P. & Verschoor, A. J. (2005). Infeasibility in automated test assembly models: A comparison study of different methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ILOG. (2002). ILOG OPL Studio 3.6.1 [User Manual]. Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Luecht, R. M. (2000). Implementing the computer-adaptive sequential testing (CAST) framework to mass produce high quality computer-adaptive and mastery tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  14. Luecht, R. M., Brumfield, T. & Breithaupt, K. (2006). A testlet assembly design for adaptive multistage tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luecht, R. M. & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Some practical applications of computerized adaptive sequential testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luecht, R. M. & Nungester, R. J. (2000). Computer-adaptive sequential testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds). Computer-adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 117–128). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Luecht, R. M., Nungester, R. J. & Hadadi, A. (1996, April). Heuristics-based CAT: Balancing item information, content, and exposure. Paper presented at annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Melican, G., Breithaupt, K., Mills, C., Hambleton, R. K. & Zhao, Y. (2005). Multi-stage testing and case studies in a fully functioning licensing examination. Invited symposium paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Mills, C. N., Hambleton, R. K., Biskin, B., Evans, J. & Pfeffer, M. (2000, January). A comparison of two standard setting methods for Uniform CPA Exam [Technical Report]. Jersey City, NJ: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Google Scholar
  20. Nemhauser, G. L. & Wolsey, L. A. (1999). Integer and combinatorial optimization. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitoniak, M. J., Hambleton, R. K. & Sireci, S. G. (2002). Advances in standard setting for professional licensure examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2002. [Also published as Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Report No. 423. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.]Google Scholar
  22. Professional Examination Service (1999). Final report of the conduct of a feasibility study for the computerization and implementation of a Uniform CPA Exam in fifty-four jurisdictions. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Rotou, O., Patsula, L., Steffen, M. & Rizavi, S. (2007). Comparison of multistage tests with computerized adaptive and paper-and-pencil tests [Research Report No. RR-07-04]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  24. Stocking, M. L. & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Theunissen, T. J. J. M. (1987). Text banking and test design. Language Testing, 4, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Linear models for optimal test design. New York: Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Linden, W. & Boekkooi-Timminga, E. (1989). A maximin model for test design with practical constraints. Psychometrika, 54, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van der Linden, W., Breithaupt, K., Chuah, S. C. & Zhang, Y. (2007). Detecting differential speededness in multistage testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veldkamp, B. P. (2002). Multidimensional constrained test assembly. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 133–146.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald J. Melican
    • 1
  • Krista Breithaupt
    • 2
  • Yanwei Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.The College BoardNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.American Institute of Certified Public AccountantsEwingUSA

Personalised recommendations