Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/sage/irt-scoring-and-test-blueprint-fidelity-M37CAulu0L
References (14)
-
M. Davier (2009)
Is There Need for the 3PL Model? Guess What?Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 7
-
APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology -
Jing Cao, S. Stokes (2008)
Bayesian IRT Guessing Models for Partial Guessing BehaviorsPsychometrika, 73
-
Sukaesi Marianti, J. Fox, M. Avetisyan, B. Veldkamp, J. Tijmstra (2014)
Testing for Aberrant Behavior in Response Time ModelingJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39
-
B. Veldkamp (2010)
Bayesian item selection in constrained adaptive testing using shadow testsPsicologica, 31
-
Gregory Camilli, Derek Briggs, F. Sloane, Ting-Wei Chiu (2013)
Psychometric perspectives on test fairness: Shrinkage estimation. -
Yanyan Sheng (2013)
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL MODELING WITH UNIDIMENSIONAL IRT MODELSBehaviormetrika, 40
-
Ting-Wei Chiu (2010)
Correction for guessing in the framework of the 3PL item response theory -
T. Muckle (2015)
Web-Based Item Development and Banking -
Wim Linden, R. Entink, J. Fox (2010)
IRT Parameter Estimation With Response Times as Collateral InformationApplied Psychological Measurement, 34
-
Chun Wang, Gongjun Xu (2015)
A mixture hierarchical model for response times and response accuracy.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 68 3
-
Ting-Wei Chiu, Gregory Camilli (2013)
Comment on 3PL IRT Adjustment for GuessingApplied Psychological Measurement, 37
-
Kentaro Yamamoto (1982)
HYBRID MODEL OF IRT AND LATENT CLASS MODELSETS Research Report Series, 1982
-
F. Lord, M. Novick, A. Birnbaum (1966)
Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability
- Publisher
- SAGE
- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2018
- ISSN
- 0146-6216
- eISSN
- 1552-3497
- DOI
- 10.1177/0146621618754897
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This article focuses on the topic of how item response theory (IRT) scoring models reflect the intended content allocation in a set of test specifications or test blueprint. Although either an adaptive or linear assessment can be built to reflect a set of design specifications, the method of scoring is also a critical step. Standard IRT models employ a set of optimal scoring weights, and these weights depend on item parameters in the two-parameter logistic (2PL) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) models. The current article is an investigation of whether the scoring models reflect an intended set of weights defined as the proportion of item falling into each cell of the test blueprint. The 3PL model is of special interest because the optimal scoring weights depend on ability. Thus, the concern arises that for examinees of low ability, the intended weights are implicitly altered.
Journal
Applied Psychological Measurement – SAGE
Published: Jul 1, 2018