OS TESTES SITUACIONAIS DE INTELIGÊNCIA EMOCIONAL COMO UM TESTE ADAPTATIVO COMPUTADORIZADO

Victor Vasconcelos de Souza, Cristiane Faiad
{"title":"OS TESTES SITUACIONAIS DE INTELIGÊNCIA EMOCIONAL COMO UM TESTE ADAPTATIVO COMPUTADORIZADO","authors":"Victor Vasconcelos de Souza, Cristiane Faiad","doi":"10.46636/recital.v5i3.478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study aimed to assess whether an emotional understanding test (STEU) and an emotional management test (STEM) could benefit from being administered as computer-adaptive tests (CATs) without impacting the validity of the test scores. To this end, 11 item selection algorithms (ISAs) were benchmarked for their bias and efficiency. Two simulation studies were run using the same response patterns from the 688 participants used in the original validation study, the same 11 ISAs, but differed in their stopping rules (SRs). For the first study, one simulation was run for each ISA with the SR being standard error lower than  (ΔSE < ), the most commonly used stopping rule criterion. For the second study, k simulations were run for each ISA, for each test, with the SR being a fixed number of items between 1 and k, where k was the total number of items of the relevant test (32 for the STEU and 30 for the STEM). Results of the first simulation showed that testing with all ISAs resulted in accurate ability estimates, all of them having r > .98 between their estimates and the estimates calculated with the entire test. The first simulation also showed that, using the best performing ISA, 368 (53.5%) participants needed to answer at least one fewer item without loss of validity. The second study showed that the STEU stood to benefit the most, with the mean standard error (MSE) being minimized six items before the end of the test, though ISAs based on the Kullback–Leibler information performed worse. However, these ISAs also displayed slightly less bias, , than the Fisher information-based ones . For the STEM, no ISA minimized MSE levels before the end of the test, but up to six fewer items for the STEM and 15 fewer items for the STEU could be administered with a slightly higher tolerance of ΔSE < . These results indicate that the use of CAT methodology to administer these tests is viable, and EI testing stands to gain from using CAT tests. Future studies should test ISA performance with additional testing constraints.","PeriodicalId":286062,"journal":{"name":"Recital - Revista de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Almenara/MG","volume":"33 6‐7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recital - Revista de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Almenara/MG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46636/recital.v5i3.478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess whether an emotional understanding test (STEU) and an emotional management test (STEM) could benefit from being administered as computer-adaptive tests (CATs) without impacting the validity of the test scores. To this end, 11 item selection algorithms (ISAs) were benchmarked for their bias and efficiency. Two simulation studies were run using the same response patterns from the 688 participants used in the original validation study, the same 11 ISAs, but differed in their stopping rules (SRs). For the first study, one simulation was run for each ISA with the SR being standard error lower than  (ΔSE < ), the most commonly used stopping rule criterion. For the second study, k simulations were run for each ISA, for each test, with the SR being a fixed number of items between 1 and k, where k was the total number of items of the relevant test (32 for the STEU and 30 for the STEM). Results of the first simulation showed that testing with all ISAs resulted in accurate ability estimates, all of them having r > .98 between their estimates and the estimates calculated with the entire test. The first simulation also showed that, using the best performing ISA, 368 (53.5%) participants needed to answer at least one fewer item without loss of validity. The second study showed that the STEU stood to benefit the most, with the mean standard error (MSE) being minimized six items before the end of the test, though ISAs based on the Kullback–Leibler information performed worse. However, these ISAs also displayed slightly less bias, , than the Fisher information-based ones . For the STEM, no ISA minimized MSE levels before the end of the test, but up to six fewer items for the STEM and 15 fewer items for the STEU could be administered with a slightly higher tolerance of ΔSE < . These results indicate that the use of CAT methodology to administer these tests is viable, and EI testing stands to gain from using CAT tests. Future studies should test ISA performance with additional testing constraints.
情境情绪智力测验作为一种计算机适应性测验
本研究旨在评估情绪理解测验(STEU)和情绪管理测验(STEM)是否能从计算机自适应测验(CAT)中获益,而不影响测验分数的有效性。为此,我们对 11 种项目选择算法(ISA)的偏差和效率进行了基准测试。使用原始验证研究中 688 名参与者的相同应答模式和 11 种 ISA 进行了两项模拟研究,但其停止规则(SR)有所不同。在第一项研究中,每个 ISA 都进行了一次模拟,SR 为标准误差小于(ΔSE < ),这是最常用的停止规则标准。在第二项研究中,对每个测试的每个 ISA 都进行了 k 次模拟,SR 为 1 到 k 之间的固定项目数,其中 k 为相关测试的项目总数(STEU 为 32 个,STEEM 为 30 个)。第一次模拟的结果表明,使用所有国际学生能力测验都能准确地估算出学生的能力,所有国际学生能力测验的估算结果与使用整个测验计算出的估算结果之间的比率都大于 0.98。第一次模拟还显示,使用表现最好的 ISA,368 名(53.5%)参与者至少需要少回答一个项目,而不会失去有效性。第二项研究表明,STEU 的获益最大,在测试结束前的六个项目中,平均标准误差(MSE)降到了最低,而基于库尔贝克-莱伯勒信息的 ISA 的表现则较差。不过,与基于费雪信息的 ISA 相比,这些 ISA 的偏差也略小一些。在 STEM 测试中,没有一种 ISA 能在测试结束前将 MSE 水平降到最低,但 STEM 和 STEU 分别减少了 6 个和 15 个项目,ΔSE < 的容忍度略高。 这些结果表明,使用 CAT 方法进行这些测试是可行的,EI 测试也能从使用 CAT 测试中获益。未来的研究应该在其他测试限制条件下测试国际统计学会的性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信