Research Article

The Effect of Test Design on Misrouting in Computerized Multistage Testing

Volume: 2023 Number: 21 October 31, 2023
TR EN

The Effect of Test Design on Misrouting in Computerized Multistage Testing

Abstract

Computerized Multistage Testing (MST) is an adaptive testing approach in which the test taker completes stages and modules on a pre-assembled panel according to his/her ability level. In MST, the test taker is routed to a module in the following stage based on his/her responses to the module in each stage. The test taker is expected to be routed to the module that fits his/her ability level best in the following stages. If the test taker is not routed to the module appropriate to his/her ability level, misrouting can be mentioned. Misrouting is thought to affect both measurement accuracy and the test taker's psychology. Although it is very difficult to completely eliminate misrouting, it is assumed that it can be reduced with the basic components of the MST design. The purpose of this study is to determine the level of misrouting according to different MST designs and to investigate the effects of changes in test design on the level of misrouting. The main components that are considered to affect misrouting are the MST test design [1-3, 1-2-3, 1-3-3], routing module design [Wide, Narrow], test length [12, 24, 36] and module length [L-S, M-M, S-L]. This study, which aims to reveal the current situation, is descriptive research and it was carried out by simulation method. The results of the study show that MST design and components can be effective in reducing misrouting. Three-stage MST designs offer lower misrouting and higher measurement accuracy than two-stage MST designs. Furthermore, increasing the test length and designing the routing module with a wide range of abilities reduce the misrouting rate. According to the measurement accuracy results, it can be stated that misrouting is not a significant problem in the MST in general, although the measurement accuracy of the misrouted test takers is low. It was concluded that the ability levels of the misrouted test takers were generally concentrated at the intersection points of the module information functions of the adjacent modules and generally in the middle of the ability scale.

Keywords

Computerized Multistage Testing , Routing , Misrouting , Measurement Accuracy , Adaptive Testing

References

  1. Breithaupt, K. J., Mills, C. N., & Melican, G. J. (2006). Facing the opportunities of the future. In D. Bartram & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the Internet: Issues and advances, 219-251. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  2. Cai, L., Albano, A. D., & Roussos, L. A. (2021). An investigation of item calibration methods in multistage testing. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 19(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2021.1878778
  3. Demir, S. (2022). The effect of item pool and selection algorithms on computerized classification testing (CCT) performance. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(3), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1099580
  4. Erdem Kara, B. (2022). Yönlendirme yöntemlerinin çok aşamalı testler üzerindeki etkisi [Effect of routing methods on the performance of multi-stage tests]. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 10 (19), 343-354. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1123902
  5. Erdem Kara, B., & Doğan, N. (2022). The effect of ratio of items indicating differential item functioning on computer adaptive and multi-stage tests. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(3), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1105769
  6. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme [Measurement and scale development in psychology]. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  7. Eroğlu, M. G., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2015). Bireyselleştirilmiş bilgisayarlı test uygulamalarında farklı sonlandırma kurallarının ölçme kesinliği ve test uzunluğu açısından karşılaştırılması [Comparison of different test termination rules in terms of measurement precision and test length in computerized adaptive testing]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 31-52. https://doi.org/10.19171/uuefd.87973
  8. Feinberg, R. A., & Rubright, J. D. (2016). Conducting simulation studies in psychometrics: Conducting simulation studies in psychometrics. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 35(2), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12111
  9. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. In(E. Kedelapan (Ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies.
  10. Harwell, M., Stone, C. A., Hsu, T. C. & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(2), 101-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000201
APA
Yiğiter, M. S., & Doğan, N. (2023). The Effect of Test Design on Misrouting in Computerized Multistage Testing. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2023(21), 549-587. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1267319