A Comparison of Item Selection Methods and Parameter Estimation Approaches for Online Calibration in Computerized Adaptive Testing.

IF 4.4 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Levent Ertuna, Cees A W Glas, Burcu Atar
{"title":"A Comparison of Item Selection Methods and Parameter Estimation Approaches for Online Calibration in Computerized Adaptive Testing.","authors":"Levent Ertuna, Cees A W Glas, Burcu Atar","doi":"10.1177/00131644261478843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Online calibration enables continuous replenishment of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) item banks by embedding new pretest items within operational test sessions. However, the relative performance of different calibration components and their interactions have not been fully examined in a unified framework. This study compared three pretest item selection methods (maximum Fisher information [MFI], D-optimal value design, and Bayesian D-optimal design), two parameter estimation methods (a fixed-ability joint maximum likelihood procedure [JML-itpar] and one expectation-maximization cycle [OEM]), three levels of random calibration stage sample size (250, 500, and 1,000), and three levels of calibration sample size per pretest item (250, 500, and 1,000) under the one-parameter logistic and two-parameter logistic item response theory models through a Monte Carlo simulation with 108 conditions and 100 replications per condition. The results revealed a trade-off among item selection methods: MFI yielded the most accurate difficulty parameter estimates, while D-optimal value design and Bayesian D-optimal design produced better discrimination parameter recovery. Bayesian D-optimal design offered the best balance between accuracy and calibration efficiency. For the first time in the standard online calibration context, JML-itpar was systematically evaluated and found to be a viable estimation method. JML-itpar paired with MFI produced lower discrimination parameter root mean squared error than OEM at calibration sample sizes of 500 and 1,000. OEM remained superior for the difficulty parameter. The calibration sample size per pretest item was the most influential factor, with substantial accuracy gains from 250 to 500 responses and diminishing returns beyond 500. The random calibration stage sample size had negligible effects. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting calibration components in operational CAT programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644261478843"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261478843","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Online calibration enables continuous replenishment of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) item banks by embedding new pretest items within operational test sessions. However, the relative performance of different calibration components and their interactions have not been fully examined in a unified framework. This study compared three pretest item selection methods (maximum Fisher information [MFI], D-optimal value design, and Bayesian D-optimal design), two parameter estimation methods (a fixed-ability joint maximum likelihood procedure [JML-itpar] and one expectation-maximization cycle [OEM]), three levels of random calibration stage sample size (250, 500, and 1,000), and three levels of calibration sample size per pretest item (250, 500, and 1,000) under the one-parameter logistic and two-parameter logistic item response theory models through a Monte Carlo simulation with 108 conditions and 100 replications per condition. The results revealed a trade-off among item selection methods: MFI yielded the most accurate difficulty parameter estimates, while D-optimal value design and Bayesian D-optimal design produced better discrimination parameter recovery. Bayesian D-optimal design offered the best balance between accuracy and calibration efficiency. For the first time in the standard online calibration context, JML-itpar was systematically evaluated and found to be a viable estimation method. JML-itpar paired with MFI produced lower discrimination parameter root mean squared error than OEM at calibration sample sizes of 500 and 1,000. OEM remained superior for the difficulty parameter. The calibration sample size per pretest item was the most influential factor, with substantial accuracy gains from 250 to 500 responses and diminishing returns beyond 500. The random calibration stage sample size had negligible effects. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting calibration components in operational CAT programs.

计算机自适应测试中在线标定的项目选择方法和参数估计方法的比较。
在线校准通过在操作测试中嵌入新的预测项目,使计算机自适应测试(CAT)题库能够持续补充。然而,不同校准分量的相对性能及其相互作用尚未在统一的框架下得到充分研究。本研究比较了三种预试项目选择方法(最大Fisher信息[MFI]、d-最优值设计和贝叶斯d-最优设计)、两种参数估计方法(固定能力联合最大似然过程[JML-itpar]和一个期望最大化周期[OEM])、三种随机校准阶段样本量(250、500和1000)和三种每个预试项目的校准样本量(250、500和1000)。在单参数logistic和双参数logistic项目响应理论模型下,通过蒙特卡罗模拟108个条件,每个条件100个重复。结果揭示了项目选择方法之间的权衡:MFI产生了最准确的难度参数估计,而d -最优值设计和贝叶斯d -最优设计产生了更好的辨别参数恢复。贝叶斯d -最优设计提供了精度和校准效率之间的最佳平衡。首次在标准在线校准环境中,对JML-itpar进行了系统评估,发现它是一种可行的估计方法。在校准样本量为500和1000时,JML-itpar与MFI配对产生的判别参数均方根误差比OEM低。OEM在难度参数上仍然占优。每个预测项目的校准样本量是最具影响力的因素,在250到500个响应之间具有可观的准确性增益,而在500以上的回报递减。随机校准阶段样本量的影响可以忽略不计。这些发现为在操作CAT程序中选择校准组件提供了实用的指导。
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
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
×
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
小红书