Systematizing the Item Content in Test Design
Traditionally, constructing a test frequently amounts to writing a number of items, administering these items to a large sample of subjects, and—on the basis of these data—selecting a set of apparently appropriate items. This procedure cannot be expected to yield instruments that will satisfy the assumptions of item response theory (for a recent overview of these the reader is referred to Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985). The weak spot in this procedure is the item writing. Items frequently differ in many ways, some of them of interest to the investigator, but some of them hardly specifiable.
KeywordsLikelihood Ratio Test Item Response Theory Design Matrix Test Design Latent Trait
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Canter, D. (Ed.). (1985). Facet theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., and Harman, H. H. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
- Fischer, G. H. (1974). Einführung in die Theorie psychologischer Tests. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
- Fischer, G. H. (1976). Some probabilistic models for measuring change. In D. N. M. de Gruyter and L. J. Th. van der Kamp (Eds.), Advances in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 97–110 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Hambleton, R. K., and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Boston: KluwerNijhoff.Google Scholar
- Spada, H. (1977). Logistic models of learning and thought. In H. Spada and W. F. Kempf (Eds.), Structural models of thinking and learning (pp. 227–262 ). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
- van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1984). Group differences in structured tests. Paper read at the Advanced Study Institute, Athens.Google Scholar