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

Abstract

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 examineees 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%.

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 — 61 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.