Reviewing and Changing Answers on Computer‐adaptive and Self‐adaptive Vocabulary Tests

Results obtained from computer-adaptive and self-adaptive tests were compared under conditions in which item review was permitted and not permitted. Comparisons of answers before and after review within the "review" condition showed that a small percentage of answers was changed (5.23%), that more answers were changed from wrong to right than from right to wrong (by a ratio of 2.92:1), that most examinees (66.5%) changed answers to at least some questions, that most examinees who changed answers improved their ability estimates by doing so (by a ratio of 2.55 to 1), and that review was particularly beneficial to examinee s at high ability levels. Comparisons between the "review" and "no-review" conditions yielded no significant differences in ability estimates or in estimated measurement error and provided no trustworthy evidence that test anxiety moderated the effects of review on those indexes. Most examinees desired review, but permitting it increased testing time by 41 %. The effects of reviewing and changing answers on fixed-item paper-and-pencil

[1]  Tianyou Wang,et al.  Can Examinees Use a Review Option to Obtain Positively Biased Ability Estimates on a Computerized Adaptive Test , 1999 .

[2]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  Individual Differences and Test Administration Procedures: A Comparison of Fixed-Item, Computerized-Adaptive, and Self-Adapted Testing. , 1994 .

[3]  Daniel J. Mueller,et al.  Implications of Changing Answers on Objective Test Items. , 1977 .

[4]  F. Lord.  A Broad-Range Tailored Test of Verbal Ability , 1975 .

[5]  Vern W. Urry,et al.  TAILORED TESTING: A SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF LATENT TRAIT THEORY* , 1977 .

[6]  John B. Best,et al.  Students' Reasons for Changing Answers on Objective Tests , 1987 .

[7]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Self-adapted testing: A performance-improving variant of computerized adaptive testing. , 1987 .

[8]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTS , 1984 .

[9]  Participants' Reactions to Computerized Testing , 1988 .

[10]  Mary E. Lunz,et al.  The Effect of Review on the Psychometric Characteristics of Computerized Adaptive Tests. , 1994 .

[11]  David J. Weiss,et al.  Improving Measurement Quality and Efficiency with Adaptive Testing , 1982 .

[12]  L. Crocker,et al.  Does Answer-Changing Affect Test Quality?. , 1980 .

[13]  Steven L. Wise,et al.  The Role of Item Feedback in Self-Adapted Testing , 1997 .

[14]  T. Rocklin.  Self-adapted testing: Improving performance by modifying tests instead of examinees , 1997 .

[15]  Robert F. McMorris,et al.  Attitudes, Behaviors, and Reasons for Changing Responses Following Answer‐Changing Instruction , 1987 .

[16]  Robert F. McMorris,et al.  Reasons for Changing Answers: An Evaluation Using Personal Interviews. , 1991 .

[17]  Betty A. Bergstrom,et al.  Individual Differences in Computer Adaptive Testing: Anxiety, Computer Literacy and Satisfaction , 1991 .

[18]  Anne L. Harvey,et al.  The Equivalence of Scores from Automated and Conventional Educational and Psychological Tests: A Review of the Literature. College Board Report No. 88-8. , 1988 .

[19]  Roberto de-la-Torre,et al.  The Development and Evaluation of a Computerized Adaptive Testing System. , 1991 .

[20]  R. F. McMorris,et al.  Answer Changing After Instruction on Answer Changing. , 1986 .

[21]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  Psychometric Characteristics of Computer-Adaptive and Self-Adaptive Vocabulary Tests: The Role of Answer Feedback and Test Anxiety. , 1998 .

[22]  Kinnard White,et al.  THE EFFECT OF ITEM TYPE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGING ANSWERS ON MULTIPLE CHOICE TESTS , 1979 .

[23]  Steven L. Wise,et al.  A Comparison of Self-Adapted and Computerized Adaptive Tests , 1992 .

[24]  Martha L. Stocking.  Revising Item Responses in Computerized Adaptive Tests: A Comparison of Three Models , 1997 .

[25]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  Effect of the Medium of Item Presentation on Examinee Performance and Item Characteristics , 1989 .

[26]  S. Wise.  Understanding Self-Adapted Testing: The Perceived Control Hypothesis. , 1994 .

[27]  Timothy A. Cavell,et al.  Staying with Initial Answers on Objective Tests: Is it a Myth? , 1984 .

[28]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  Computer Assisted Tailored Testing: Examinee Reactions and Evaluations , 1978 .

[29]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  Computerized Adaptive and Fixed-Item Versions of the Ited Vocabulary Subtest , 1993 .

[30]  Betty A. Bergstrom,et al.  The Effect of Review on Student Ability and Test Efficiency for Computerized Adaptive Tests , 1992 .

[31]  Walter P. Vispoel,et al.  Computerized-Adaptive and Self-Adapted Music-Listening Tests: Psychometric Features and Motivational Benefits. , 1994 .

[32]  Walter P. Vispoel.  How Review Options and Administration Modes Influence Scores on Computerized Vocabulary Tests. , 1992 .

[33]  C. O. Mathews.  Erroneous first impressions on objective tests. , 1929 .

[34]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Adaptive EAP Estimation of Ability in a Microcomputer Environment , 1982 .

[35]  Steven L. Wise.  A Critical Analysis of the Arguments for and against Item Review in Computerized Adaptive Testing. , 1996 .

[36]  Tianyou Wang,et al.  Computerized Adaptive and Fixed‐Item Testing of Music Listening Skill: A Comparison of Efficiency, Precision, and Concurrent Validity , 1997 .

[37]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Effects and underlying mechanisms of self-adapted testing. , 1995 .