Empirical Priors in Polytomous Computerized Adaptive Tests: Risks and Rewards in Clinical Settings

The use of empirical prior information about participants has been shown to substantially improve the efficiency of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in educational settings. However, it is unclear how these results translate to clinical settings, where small item banks with highly informative polytomous items often lead to very short CATs. We explored the risks and rewards of using prior information in CAT in two simulation studies, rooted in applied clinical examples. In the first simulation, prior precision and bias in the prior location were manipulated independently. Our results show that a precise personalized prior can meaningfully increase CAT efficiency. However, this reward comes with the potential risk of overconfidence in wrong empirical information (i.e., using a precise severely biased prior), which can lead to unnecessarily long tests, or severely biased estimates. The latter risk can be mitigated by setting a minimum number of items that are to be administered during the CAT, or by setting a less precise prior; be it at the expense of canceling out any efficiency gains. The second simulation, with more realistic bias and precision combinations in the empirical prior, places the prevalence of the potential risks in context. With similar estimation bias, an empirical prior reduced CAT test length, compared to a standard normal prior, in 68% of cases, by a median of 20%; while test length increased in only 3% of cases. The use of prior information in CAT seems to be a feasible and simple method to reduce test burden for patients and clinical practitioners alike.     

认知诊断计算机自适应测验中平衡属性收敛的新方法

提出两种认知诊断计算机自适应测验下平衡属性收敛的新方法（MABI、RTA）,模拟研究系统探讨和比较了此二者与已有方法（ABI、IABI和RABI）的表现。结果发现：（1）新方法较不考虑属性收敛的方法有更高的准确率以及更均衡的题目使用率;（2）新方法较ABI和RABI有稍低的准确性,但有更平衡的题目使用率;（3）新方法与IABI的准确性和题目使用率在不同选题策略下各有合优势。总之,两种新方法较好地兼顾测量准确性、题目使用率以及题库曝光情况。     

认知诊断计算机自适应测验中平衡属性收敛的新方法

提出两种认知诊断计算机自适应测验下平衡属性收敛的新方法（MABI、RTA）,模拟研究系统探讨和比较了此二者与已有方法（ABI、IABI和RABI）的表现。结果发现：（1）新方法较不考虑属性收敛的方法有更高的准确率以及更均衡的题目使用率;（2）新方法较ABI和RABI有稍低的准确性,但有更平衡的题目使用率;（3）新方法与IABI的准确性和题目使用率在不同选题策略下各有合优势。总之,两种新方法较好地兼顾测量准确性、题目使用率以及题库曝光情况。     

变长CD-CAT中的曝光控制与终止规则

本研究借鉴传统计算机化自适应测验的思想, 并结合认知诊断的特点, 在认知诊断框架下提出了4种变长CD-CAT的终止规则, 分别是属性标准误法(SEA)、邻近后验概率之差法(DAPP)、二等分法(HA)以及混合法(HM)。在未控制曝光和采用不同曝光控制条件下, 与HSU法及KL法进行了比较。研究结果表明：(1) 终止条件越严格, 平均测验长度越长, 按测验长度最大值终止的测验百分比越大, 模式判准率越高。(2) 当未加入曝光控制时, 4种新的终止规则均有较好表现, 与HSU法十分接近。随着最大后验概率预设值的增加或e的减小, 模式判准率呈上升趋势, 平均测验长度逐渐增加, 但在题库使用率方面均较差。(3) 当加入项目曝光控制时, 6种变长终止规则下的题库使用率有了极大的提升, 仍能保持较高的模式判准率, 并且不同的曝光控制方法对终止规则的影响是不同的。其中, 相对标准终止规则极易受到曝光控制方法的影响。(4) 综合来看, SEA、HM以及HA法在各项指标上的表现与HSU法基本一致, 其次为KL法和DAPP法。     

计算机适应性测验条件下认知设计项目预测参数的影响

自动化项目生成(Automatic Item Generation)中的项目参数是基于认知项目设计的刺激特征集预测的, 在不确定性来源上较之用经验数据标定的参数更为复杂。文章通过实证研究分析了在计算机适应性测验条件下基于认知设计系统法生成的抽象推理测验(ART)项目预测参数对能力参数估计的精确性。研究表明, 项目预测参数比相应标定参数分布更为趋中。这种回归效应既影响到能力参数估计误差大小, 也导致适应性测验过程中项目选择的差异。在控制了项目选择差异之后, 能力参数估计误差较之基于项目标定参数的能力估计误差大, 但差别并不明显。两者相应的能力估计值相关很高, 对应能力值之间的差异很小, 且几乎贯彻整个能力分布区间。     

Using a Response Time–Based Expected A Posteriori Estimator to Control for Differential Speededness in Computerized Adaptive Test

This study investigates using response times (RTs) with item responses in a computerized adaptive test (CAT) setting to enhance item selection and ability estimation and control for differential speededness. Using van der Linden’s hierarchical framework, an extended procedure for joint estimation of ability and speed parameters for use in CAT is developed following van der Linden; this is called the joint expected a posteriori estimator (J-EAP). It is shown that the J-EAP estimate of ability and speededness outperforms the standard maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of ability and speededness in terms of correlation, root mean square error, and bias. It is further shown that under the maximum information per time unit item selection method (MICT)—a method which uses estimates for ability and speededness directly—using the J-EAP further reduces average examinee time spent and variability in test times between examinees above the resulting gains of this selection algorithm with the MLE while maintaining estimation efficiency. Simulated test results are further corroborated with test parameters derived from a real data example.