ERIC Number: ED423258
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1998-Apr
Reference Count: N/A
Comparing Restricted and Unrestricted Self-Adapted Testing as Alternatives to Computerized Adaptive Testing.
Roos, Linda L.; Wise, Steven L.; Finney, Sara J.
Previous studies have shown that, when administered a self-adapted test, a few examinees will choose item difficulty levels that are not well-matched to their proficiencies, resulting in high standard errors of proficiency estimation. This study investigated whether the previously observed effects of a self-adapted test--lower anxiety and higher test performance relative to a computerized adaptive test (CAT)--can be sustained while eliminating the high standard errors. A restricted self-adapted test (RS-AT) in which examinees were allowed to choose among a set of difficulty levels only in the region of their proficiency estimates was utilized in this study. Data were collected from 273 students in an introductory statistics class. The results show that while the RS-AT effectively controlled the standard errors of proficiency estimation, examinees receiving an RS-AT did not show higher mean proficiency or lower posttest state anxiety than examinees receiving a CAT. (Contains 3 tables and 15 references.) (SLD)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A