Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:32:56.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidimensional Adaptive Testing with Constraints on Test Content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Bernard P. Veldkamp  and
Wim J. van der Linden
Bernard P. Veldkamp*
Affiliation:
University of Twente
Wim J. van der Linden
Affiliation:
University of Twente
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bernard R Veldkamp, Department of Educational Measurement and Data Analysis, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, THE NETHERLANDS. E-Mail: Veldkamp@edte.utwente.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The case of adaptive testing under a multidimensional response model with large numbers of constraints on the content of the test is addressed. The items in the test are selected using a shadow test approach. The 0–1 linear programming model that assembles the shadow tests maximizes posterior expected Kullback-Leibler information in the test. The procedure is illustrated for five different cases of multidimensionality. These cases differ in (a) the numbers of ability dimensions that are intentional or should be considered as “nuisance dimensions” and (b) whether the test should or should not display a simple structure with respect to the intentional ability dimensions.

Keywords

mathematical programmingmultidimensional adaptive testingmultidimensional item response theoryposterior expected Kullback-Leibler information
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 575 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, E.B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bloxom, B.M., & Vale, C.D. (1987, June). Multidimensional adaptive testing: A procedure for sequential estimation of the posterior centroid and dispersion of theta. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Montreal.Google Scholar
Chang, H-H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). NOHARM II: A FORTRAN program for fitting unidimensional and multidimensional normal ogive models of latent trait theory. Armidale, Australia: University of New England, Centre for Behavioral Studies.Google Scholar
Glas, C.A.W. (1989). Contributions to estimating and testing Rasch models. The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
ILOG (2000). CPLEX 6.5 [Computer program and manual]. Incline Village, NV: Author.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E.L. (1999). Elements of large-sample theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E.L., & Casella, G. (1998). Theory of point estimation. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lord, F.M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Luecht, R.M. (1996). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing in a certification or licensure context. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckase, M.D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckase, M.D. (1997). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. In van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 271–286). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, D.O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, D.O. (2000). Principles of multidimensional adaptive testing. In van der Linden, W.J., & Glas, C.A.W. (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 53–73). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
van der Linden, W.J. (1996). Assembling tests for the measurement of multiple traits. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W.J. (1999). Multidimensional adaptive testing with a minimum error-variance criterion. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W.J. (2000). Constrained adaptive testing with shadow tests. In van der Linden, W.J., & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 27–52). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W.J., & Pashley, P.J (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing with shadow tests. In van der Linden, W.J., Glas, C.A.W. (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W.J., & Reese, L.M. (1998). A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldkamp, B.P. (2002). Modifications of the branch-and-bound algorithm for use in constrained adaptive testing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar