Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:18:34.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Aptitude Measurements for the Optimal Assignment of Subjects to Treatments with and without Mastery Scores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Wim J. van der Linden
Wim J. van der Linden*
Affiliation:
Twente University of Technology
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Wire J. van der Linden, Onderafdeling Toegepaste Onderwijskunde, Tehnische Hogeschool Twente, Postbus 217, 7500 AE Enschede, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For assigning subjects to treatments the point of intersection of within-group regression lines is ordinarily used as the critical point. This decision rule is critized and, for several utility functions and any number of treatments, replaced by optimal monotone, nonrandomized (Bayes) rules. Both treatments with and without mastery scores are considered. Moreover, the effect of unreliable criterion scores on the optimal decision rule is examined, and it is illustrated how qualitative information can be combined with aptitude measurements to improve treatment assignment decisions. Although the models in this paper are presented with special reference to the aptitude-treatment interaction problem in education, it is indicated that they apply to a variety of situations in which subjects are assigned to treatments on the basis of some predictor score, as long as there are no allocation quota considerations.

Keywords

aptitude-treatment interactiondecision theorycriterion-referenced measurement
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 257 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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.)

Footnotes

The author is indebted to Gideon J. Mellenbergh for his valuable comments on earlier drafts of the paper. Thanks are also due to Fred N. Kerlinger, Ivo W. Molenaar, Tjeerd Plomp, Niels Veldhuizen, Michel Zwarts, and one of the referees for their helpful comments, and to Paula Achterberg and Jolanda van Laar for typing the manuscript.

References

Reference Notes

Suppes, P., Smith, R., & Beard, M. University level computer-assisted instruction at Stanford: 1975, 1975, Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Vijn, P. Prior information in linear models, 1980, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Atkinson, R. C. Computer-based instruction in initial reading. Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, 1968, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Berhold, M. H. The use of distribution functions to represent utility functions. Management Science, 1973, 19, 825–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J. H. Mastery learning: Theory and practice, 1971, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1968, 1, (12).Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning, 1971, New York, N.J.: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Borich, G. D., & Wunderlich, K. W. Johnson-Neyman revisited: Determining interactions among group regressions and plotting regions of significance in the case of two groups, two predictors and one criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1967, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. Psychological tests and personnel decisions, 2nd Ed., Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions, 1977, New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H. Optimal statistical decisions, 1970, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Erlander, S., & Gustavsson, J. Simultaneous confidence region in normal regression analysis with an application to road accidents. Review of the International Statistical Institute, 1965, 33, 364–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, T. S. Mathematical statistics: A decision theoretic approach, 1967, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. Functional education for the seventies. Phi Delta Kappan, 1967, 49, 27–32.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. Adapting the elementary school curriculum to individual performance. Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, 1968, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Glaser, R., & Nitko, A. J. Measurement in learning and instruction. In Thorndike, R. L. (Eds.), Educational Measurement, 1971, Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Gross, A. L., & Su, W. H. Defining a “fair” or “unbiased” selection model: A question of utilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. Testing and decision-making procedures for selected individualized instructional programs. Review of Educational Research, 1974, 44, 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., & Novick, M. R. Toward an integration of theory and method for criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1973, 10, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H., Algina, R., & Coulson, D. B. Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huynh, H. Statistical considerations of mastery scores. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. D., & Neyman, J. Tests of linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1936, 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
Karlin, S. Decision theory for Pólya type distributions. Case of two actions, I. Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. (Vol. 1), 1957, Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Karlin, S., Rubin, H. Distributions possessing a monotone likelihood ratio. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1956, 1, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlin, S., & Rubin, H. The theory of decision procedures for distributions with monotone likelihood ratio. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1956, 27, 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, D., & Raiffa, H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs, 1976, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Lindgren, B. W. Statistical Theory, 3rd Ed., New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
Lindley, D. V. A class of utility functions. The Annals of Statistics, 1976, 4, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. Statistical theories of mental test scores, 1968, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. Games and decisions, 1957, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J., Koppelaar, H., & van der Linden, W. J. Dichotomous decisions based on dichotomously scored items: A case study. Statistica Neerlandica, 1977, 31, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J., & van der Linden, W. J. The linear utility model for optimal selection. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitko, A. J., & Hsu, T. C. Using domain-referenced tests for student placement, diagnosis and attainment in a system of adaptive, individualized instruction. Educational Technology, 1974, 14, 48–54.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R., & Lindley, D. V. The use of more realistic utility functions in educational applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., & Lindley, D. V. Fixed-state assessment of utility functions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979, 74, 306–311.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. S. An expected utility model for “optimal” selection. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1976, 1, 333–358.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. S., & Novick, M. R. An evaluation of some models for culture-fair selection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1976, 13, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potthoff, R. F. On the Johnson-Neyman technique and some extensions thereof. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G. Heuristic models for the generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. The use of computers in education. Scientific American, 1966, 215, 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Algina, J. A Bayesian decision-theoretic procedure for use with criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1975, 12, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. J. Decision models for use with criterion-referenced tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1980, 4, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. J., & Mellenbergh, G. J. Optimal cutting scores using a linear loss function. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1977, 1, 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar