Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns

R.R. Meijer

Research output: Book/ReportReportOther research output

Abstract

This study investigated the usefulness of three different methods to determine unexpected sum scores on subtests (testlets) both for paper-and-pencil tests and computerized adaptive tests. The method proposed by Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) was compared with a method proposed by Thissen, Pommerich, Billeaud, and Williams (1995). Data were simulated on the basis of the one-parameter logistic model, and both parametric and nonparametric logistic regression was used to obtain estimates of the latent trait. Results showed that it is important to take the trait level into account when comparing subtest scores. Furthermore, an adapted version of Thissen et al. (1995) is a powerful alternative to the method proposed by Sijtsma and Meijer (2001).
Original languageUndefined
Place of PublicationNewton, PA, USA
PublisherLaw School Admission Council
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2005

Publication series

NameLSAC research report series
PublisherLaw School Admission Council
No.02-04

Keywords

  • IR-104286

Cite this

Meijer, R. R. (2005). Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns. (LSAC research report series; No. 02-04). Newton, PA, USA: Law School Admission Council.
Meijer, R.R. / Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns. Newton, PA, USA : Law School Admission Council, 2005. 10 p. (LSAC research report series; 02-04).
@book{05bb39ca178440148a11760090fa944e,
title = "Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns",
abstract = "This study investigated the usefulness of three different methods to determine unexpected sum scores on subtests (testlets) both for paper-and-pencil tests and computerized adaptive tests. The method proposed by Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) was compared with a method proposed by Thissen, Pommerich, Billeaud, and Williams (1995). Data were simulated on the basis of the one-parameter logistic model, and both parametric and nonparametric logistic regression was used to obtain estimates of the latent trait. Results showed that it is important to take the trait level into account when comparing subtest scores. Furthermore, an adapted version of Thissen et al. (1995) is a powerful alternative to the method proposed by Sijtsma and Meijer (2001).",
keywords = "IR-104286",
author = "R.R. Meijer",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
language = "Undefined",
series = "LSAC research report series",
publisher = "Law School Admission Council",
number = "02-04",

}

Meijer, RR 2005, Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns. LSAC research report series, no. 02-04, Law School Admission Council, Newton, PA, USA.

Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns. / Meijer, R.R.

Newton, PA, USA : Law School Admission Council, 2005. 10 p. (LSAC research report series; No. 02-04).

Research output: Book/ReportReportOther research output

TY - BOOK

T1 - Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns

AU - Meijer, R.R.

PY - 2005/12

Y1 - 2005/12

N2 - This study investigated the usefulness of three different methods to determine unexpected sum scores on subtests (testlets) both for paper-and-pencil tests and computerized adaptive tests. The method proposed by Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) was compared with a method proposed by Thissen, Pommerich, Billeaud, and Williams (1995). Data were simulated on the basis of the one-parameter logistic model, and both parametric and nonparametric logistic regression was used to obtain estimates of the latent trait. Results showed that it is important to take the trait level into account when comparing subtest scores. Furthermore, an adapted version of Thissen et al. (1995) is a powerful alternative to the method proposed by Sijtsma and Meijer (2001).

AB - This study investigated the usefulness of three different methods to determine unexpected sum scores on subtests (testlets) both for paper-and-pencil tests and computerized adaptive tests. The method proposed by Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) was compared with a method proposed by Thissen, Pommerich, Billeaud, and Williams (1995). Data were simulated on the basis of the one-parameter logistic model, and both parametric and nonparametric logistic regression was used to obtain estimates of the latent trait. Results showed that it is important to take the trait level into account when comparing subtest scores. Furthermore, an adapted version of Thissen et al. (1995) is a powerful alternative to the method proposed by Sijtsma and Meijer (2001).

KW - IR-104286

M3 - Report

T3 - LSAC research report series

BT - Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns

PB - Law School Admission Council

CY - Newton, PA, USA

ER -

Meijer RR. Using patterns of summed scores in paper-and-pencil tests and CAT to detect misfitting item score patterns. Newton, PA, USA: Law School Admission Council, 2005. 10 p. (LSAC research report series; 02-04).