Advertisement

Comparison of Linear, Computerized Adaptive and Multi Stage Adaptive Versions of the Mathematics Assessment of Turkish Pupil Monitoring System

  • Semirhan GökçeEmail author
  • Giray Berberoğlu
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 89)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the results of computer based linear Turkish Pupil Monitoring System (TPMS) administrations with Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) and Multi Stage Adaptive Testing (MSAT) results in mathematics assessment. On the basis of the real data obtained from TPMS, different CAT scenarios were tested in post-hoc simulations with various starting rules, termination criteria, and different control strategies of CAT using either Maximum Likelihood (ML) or Weighted Maximum Likelihood (WML) estimation procedures. Results of the CAT study indicated that WML with easy initial item difficulty, fixed test reliability termination along with item exposure and content control strategies produced defensible results. Alternatively, a multi stage scenario was designed to compare the efficiency of CAT and MSAT. Examinees were administered a fixed subtest with 15 items followed by two subtests having ten items each. Using MSAT in TPMS seemed to be producing more valid results in terms of content sampling than CAT.

Keywords

Pupil monitoring system Computerized adaptive testing Multistage adaptive testing Ability estimation method Item exposure control and content control 

References

  1. Boyd AM, Dodd BG, Choi SW (2010) Polytomous models in computerized adaptive testing. In: Nering ML, Ostini R (eds) Handbook of polytomous item response theory models. Routledge, New York, pp 229–255Google Scholar
  2. Eggen TJHM, Straetmans GJJM (2000) Computerized adaptive testing for classifying examinees in three categories. Educ Psychol Measu 60:713–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eggen TJHM, Verschoor AJ (2006) Optimal testing with easy or difficult items in computerized adaptive testing. Appl Psychol Meas 30:379–393CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Glas CAW, Geerlings H (2009) Psychometric aspects of pupil monitoring systems. Stud Educ Eval 35:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. İş Güzel Ç, Berberoğlu G, Demirtaşlı N, Arıkan S, Özgen Tuncer Ç (2009) Öğretim programlarının öğrenme çıktıları açısından değerlendirilmesi. Cito Egitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, Sayı 6:9–30Google Scholar
  6. Kingsbury GG, Zara AR (1991) A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Appl Meas Educ 4:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Macken-Ruiz CL (2008) A comparison of multi-stage and computerized adaptive tests based on the generalized partial credit model. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  8. Özgen Tuncer Ç (2008) Cito Turkiye öğrenci izleme sistemi (ÖIS) ve ÖİS’te soru geliştirme süreci. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, Tanıtım Sayısı, pp 22-26Google Scholar
  9. Rotou O, Patsula L, Manfred S, Rizavi S (2003) Comparison of multi-stage tests with computerized adaptive and paper and pencil tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) held between April 21–25, 2003, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  10. Sympson JB, Hetter RD (1985) Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association, San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, pp 973–977Google Scholar
  11. Vlug KMF (1997) Because every pupil counts: the success of the pupil monitoring system in the Netherlands. Educ Inf Technol 2(4):287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wainer H, Kiely GL (1987) Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: a case for testlets. J Educ Meas 24:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Green FB, Steinberg L, Flaugher R, Mislevy RJ, Thissen D (1990) Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cito TürkiyeAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Nigde University Faculty of EducationNigdeTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations