A Comparison of a Bayesian and a Maximum Likelihood Tailored Testing Procedure.
Abstract
A study was conducted to compare tailored testing procedures based on Owen's Bayesian ability estimation technique and on a maximum likelihood ability estimation technique. The Bayesian tailored testing procedure selected items so as to minimize the posterior variance of the ability estimate distribution, while the maximum likelihood tailored testing procedure selected items so as to maximize the item information for the current ability estimate. The study was conducted over the winter semester and summer session of 1980 using as subjects volunteers from a undergraduate introductory course in measurement and a graduate/undergraduate course in group intelligence testing. Analyses for the two procedures included a determination of the optimal test length, a comparison of the test-retest reliability, a comparison of the total test information, a comparison of the obtained ability estimates, a comparison of the goodness of fit of the 3PL model to the test data, and the compiling of descriptive statistics including average testing time and average test difficulty. Results of the analyses indicated that the optimal test length of the Bayesian procedure was 14 items, while the optimal test length of the maximum likelihood procedure was 12 items. No difference was found between the procedures in terms of the reliability of the ability estimates.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 1981
- Accession Number
- ADA111424
Entities
People
- Mark D. Reckase
- Robert L. Mckinley