Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Glasnapp, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Effects of Estimation Bias on Multiple-Category Classification With an IRT-Based Adaptive Classification Procedure

Xiangdong Yang

John C. Poggio

Douglas R. Glasnapp

The University of Kansas

The effects of five ability estimators, that is, maximum likelihood estimator, weighted likelihood estimator, maximum a posteriori, expected a posteriori, and Owen's sequential estimator, on the performances of the item response theory–based adaptive classification procedure on multiple categories were studied via simulations. The following results were found. (a) The Bayesian estimators were more likely to misclassify examinees into an inward category because of their inward biases, when a fixed start value of zero was assigned to every examinee. (b) When moderately accurate start values were available, however, Bayesian estimators produced classifications that were slightly more accurate than was the maximum likelihood estimator or weighted likelihood estimator. Expected a posteriori was the procedure that produced the most accurate results among the three Bayesian methods. (c) All five estimators produced equivalent efficiencies in terms of number of items required, which was 50 or more items except for abilities that were less than -2.00 or greater than 2.00.

Key Words: computerized adaptive mastery testing (CAMT) • adaptive classification procedure • multiple-category classification • ability estimator • estimation bias

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66, No. 4, 545-564 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164405284031
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?