@conference {2083, title = {Detecting DIF between Conventional and Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Monte Carlo Study}, booktitle = {Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing}, year = {2011}, month = {10/2011}, abstract = {

A comparison od two procedures, Modified Robust Z and 95\% Credible Interval, were compared in a Monte Carlo study. Both procedures evidenced adequate control of false positive DIF results.

}, keywords = {95\% Credible Interval, CAT, DIF, differential item function, modified robust Z statistic, Monte Carlo methodologies}, author = {Barth B. Riley and Adam C. Carle} } @conference {2107, title = {The Use of Decision Trees for Adaptive Item Selection and Score Estimation}, booktitle = {Annual Conference of the International Association for Computerized Adaptive Testing}, year = {2011}, month = {10/2011}, abstract = {

Conducted post-hoc simulations comparing the relative efficiency, and precision of decision trees (using CHAID and CART) vs. IRT-based CAT.

Conclusions

Decision tree methods were more efficient than CAT

But,...

Conclusions

CAT selects items based on two criteria: Item location relative to current estimate of theta, Item discrimination

Decision Trees select items that best discriminate between groups defined by the total score.

CAT is optimal only when trait level is well estimated.
Findings suggest that combining decision tree followed by CAT item selection may be advantageous.

}, keywords = {adaptive item selection, CAT, decision tree}, author = {Barth B. Riley and Rodney Funk and Michael L. Dennis and Richard D. Lennox and Matthew Finkelman} } @article {2160, title = {A Comparison of Content-Balancing Procedures for Estimating Multiple Clinical Domains in Computerized Adaptive Testing: Relative Precision, Validity, and Detection of Persons With Misfitting Responses}, journal = {Applied Psychological Measurement}, volume = {34}, number = {6}, year = {2010}, pages = {410-423}, abstract = {

This simulation study sought to compare four different computerized adaptive testing (CAT) content-balancing procedures designed for use in a multidimensional assessment with respect to measurement precision, symptom severity classification, validity of clinical diagnostic recommendations, and sensitivity to atypical responding. The four content-balancing procedures were (a) no content balancing, (b) screener-based, (c) mixed (screener plus content balancing), and (d) full content balancing. In full content balancing and in mixed content balancing following administration of the screener items, item selection was based on (a) whether the target number of items for the item\’s subscale was reached and (b) the item\’s information function. Mixed and full content balancing provided the best representation of items from each of the main subscales of the Internal Mental Distress Scale. These procedures also resulted in higher CAT to full-scale correlations for the Trauma and Homicidal/Suicidal Thought subscales and improved detection of atypical responding.

}, doi = {10.1177/0146621609349802}, url = {http://apm.sagepub.com/content/34/6/410.abstract}, author = {Barth B. Riley and Michael L. Dennis and Conrad, Kendon J.} }