A Critical Analysis of the Arguments for and against Item Review in Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Abstract

In recent years, a controversy has arisen about the advisability of allowing examinees to review their test items and possibly change answers. Arguments for and against allowing item review are discussed, and issues that a test designer should consider when designing a Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) are identified. Most CATs do not allow examinees the opportunity to review their items. The reasons advanced for this position include: (1) the possibility of item dependence that might affect another answer; (2) a decrease in testing efficiency; (3) opening the test results to effects of test-taking strategies; (4) an increase in testing time; and (5) complications in test development. Arguments in favor of allowing review focus on legitimate score gain possibilities. The first usually advanced is that examinees prefer to be able to review, and the second is that review yields legitimately improved scores. Consideration of arguments for and against item review is complicated by the presence of multiple stakeholders in the measurement process. The question of allowing item review is one without a clear answer, but the interests of test takers and test givers should be protected, perhaps by the development of new types of CAT. (Contains 1 table and 23 references.) (SLD) ********7,c*********************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ***************.AA;:k '**********************************************

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.