Accounting for item calibration error in computerized adaptive testing

In computerized adaptive testing (CAT), item parameter estimates derived from calibration studies are considered to be known and are used as fixed values for adaptive item selection and ability estimation. This is not completely accurate because these item parameter estimates contain a certain degree of error. If this error is random, the typical CAT procedure leads to standard errors of the final ability estimates that are too small. If the calibration error is large, it has been shown that the accuracy of the ability estimates is negatively affected due to the capitalization on chance problem, especially for extreme ability levels. In order to find a solution for this fundamental problem of CAT, we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine three approaches that can be used to consider the uncertainty of item parameter estimates in CAT. The first two approaches used a measurement error modeling approach in which item parameters were treated as covariates that contained errors. The third approach was fully Bayesian. Each of the approaches was compared with regard to the quality of the resulting ability estimates. The results indicate that each of the three approaches is capable of reducing bias and the mean squared error (MSE) of the ability estimates, especially for high item calibration errors. The Bayesian approach clearly outperformed the other approaches. We recommend the Bayesian approach, especially for application areas in which the recruitment of a large calibration sample is infeasible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2025-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02649-8
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.21
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accounting for item calibration error in computerized adaptive testing

Aron Fink, Christoph König, Andreas Frey
2 citations
Behavior Research Methods
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
4.21
article

Accounting for item calibration error in computerized adaptive testing

Aron Fink, Christoph König, Andreas Frey
article en
2 citations

Abstract

In computerized adaptive testing (CAT), item parameter estimates derived from calibration studies are considered to be known and are used as fixed values for adaptive item selection and ability estimation. This is not completely accurate because these item parameter estimates contain a certain degree of error. If this error is random, the typical CAT procedure leads to standard errors of the final ability estimates that are too small. If the calibration error is large, it has been shown that the accuracy of the ability estimates is negatively affected due to the capitalization on chance problem, especially for extreme ability levels. In order to find a solution for this fundamental problem of CAT, we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine three approaches that can be used to consider the uncertainty of item parameter estimates in CAT. The first two approaches used a measurement error modeling approach in which item parameters were treated as covariates that contained errors. The third approach was fully Bayesian. Each of the approaches was compared with regard to the quality of the resulting ability estimates. The results indicate that each of the three approaches is capable of reducing bias and the mean squared error (MSE) of the ability estimates, especially for high item calibration errors. The Bayesian approach clearly outperformed the other approaches. We recommend the Bayesian approach, especially for application areas in which the recruitment of a large calibration sample is infeasible.

Behavior Research MethodsVol. 57(5)
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
4.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.