Creating Parallel Forms to Support On-Demand Testing for Undergraduate Students in Psychology

Abstract

On-demanding testing requires that multiple forms of an exam be administered to students in each testing session.  But the use of multiple forms raises test security concern because of item exposure.  One way to limit exposure is with parallel forms construction.  Parallel forms are different versions of a test that measure the same content areas and have the same difficulty level but contain different sets of items.  The purpose of our study is to describe and demonstrate how parallel forms can be created even from small test banks.  We present three unique yet plausible test assembly problems.  We also provide a solution for each problem using the results from a free, open-source, software add-in for Microsoft Excel called the Opensolver.  Implications for test design and item development are discussed.

Keywords

• Test Development; Automated Test Assembly; Fairness

Creating Parallel Forms to Support On-Demand Testing for Undergraduate Students in Psychology

Abstract

On-demand testing requires that multiple forms of an exam should be administered to students in each testing session.  However, the use of multiple forms raises test security concern because of item exposure.  One way to limit exposure is using parallel forms construction.  Parallel forms are different versions of a test that measure the same content areas and have the same difficulty level but contain different sets of items.  The purpose of this study is to describe and demonstrate how parallel forms can be created from a small item bank using the selected-response item type.  We present three unique yet plausible test assembly problems.  We also provide a solution for each problem using the results from a free, open-source, software add-in for Microsoft Excel called the Opensolver.  Implications for test design and item development are discussed.

Keywords

• Test development,automated test assembly,fairness in testing

References

1. Breithaupt, K., & Hare, D. (2016). Automated test assembly. In F. Drasgow (Ed.), Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement (pp. 128-141). New York: Routledge.
2. Daniels, L., & Gierl, M. J. (in press). The impact of immediate test score reporting on university students‘ achievement emotions in the context of computer-based multiple-choice exams. Learning and Instruction.
3. Drasgow, F. (2016). Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement. New York: Routledge.
4. Drasgow, F., Luecht, R. M., & Bennett, R. (2006). Technology and testing. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 471-516). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
5. Luecht, R. M. (1998). Computer-assisted test assembly using optimization heuristics. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 224-236.
6. Luecht, R. M. (2016). Computer-based test delivery models, data, and operational implementation issues. In F. Drasgow (Ed.), Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement (pp. 179-205). New York: Routledge.
7. Sireci, S., & Zenisky, A. (2016). Computerized innovative item formats: Achievement and credentialing. In S. Lane, M. Raymond, & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of Test Development (2nd edition, pp. 313-334). New York: Routledge.
8. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Optimal assembly of psychological and educational tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 195-211.

9. van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Linear models for optimal test design. New York: Springer.