Abstract
As computer-based testing (CBT) becomes a dominant, if not the dominant,medium for delivering assessments, interest in the potential of innovative items has grown. Innovative items are those that make use of features and functions of the computer to deliver assessments that do things not easily done in traditional paper-and-pencil assessments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
AICPA. (2004, February). AICPA, NASBA, and Prometric successfully pilot computer-based exam for CPAs. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from http://www.aicpa.org/download/news/2004_02_02.pdf.
Bejar, I. I. (1991). A methodology for scoring open-ended architectural design problems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 522–532.
Bennett, R. E. & Bejar, I. I. (1998). Validity and automated scoring: It’s not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 17, 9–17.
Bennett, R. E., Goodman, M., Hessinger, J., Ligget, J., Marshall, G., Kahn, H. & Zack, J. (1997). Using multimedia in large-scale computer-based testing programs (Research Report No. RR-97-3). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bennett, R. E., Morley, M. & Quardt, D. (1998, April). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized-adaptive tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego.
Braun, H. (1994). Assessing technology in assessment. In E. A. Baker & H. F. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 231–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Braun, H., Bejar, I. I. & Williamson, D. M. (2006). Rule-based methods for automated scoring: Application in a licensing context. In D. M. Williamson, I. I. Bejar & R. J. Mislevy (Eds.), Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing (pp. 83–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chandler, L., Zimmerman, L., Castro, J. & Way, W. D. (2006). Using technology to create innovative state science assessments: Pilots and policy. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers Annual Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, San Francisco, CA.
Drasgow, F., Olson-Buchanan, J. B. & Moberg, P. J. (1999). Development of an interactive video assessment: Trials and tribulations. In F. Drasgow & J. B. Olson-Buchanan, (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment. (pp 177–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fitch, W. T. & Kramer, G. (1994). Sonifying the Body Electric: Superiority of an auditory over a visual display in a complex, multivariate system. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Auditory Display, (pp. 307–325). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harmes, J. C. & Parshall, C. G. (2000). An iterative process for computerized test development: Integrating usability methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tallahassee, FL.
Harmes, J. C. & Parshall, C. G. (2005). Situated tasks and simulated environments: A look into the future for innovative computerized assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association. Miami.
Harmes, J. C., Parshall, C. G., Rendina-Gobioff, G., Jones, P. K., Githens, M. & Dennard, A. (2004, November). Integrating usability methods into the CBT development process: Case study of a technology literacy assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL.
Huff, K. L & Sireci, S. G. (2001, Fall). Validity issues in computer-based testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 16–25.
Koch, D. A. (1993). Testing goes graphical. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 5, 14–21.
Luecht, R. M. & Clauser, B. E. (2002). Test models for complex computer-based testing. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Margolis, M. J. & Clauser, B. E. (2006). A regression-based procedure for automated scoring of a complex medical performance assessment. In D. M. Williamson, I. I. Bejar & R. J. Mislevy (Eds.), Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing (pp. 123–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Melnick, D. E. & Clauser, B. E (2006). Computer based testing for professional licensing and certification of health professionals. In D. Bartram & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the Internet: Issues and advances (pp. 163–186). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G. & Johnson, L. (2002). Making sense of data from complex assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 363–389.
National Board of Medical Examiners. (2004, Fall/Winter). Continuing developments in computer-based testing. NBME Examiner. Retrieved May 9, 2005, from http://www. nbme.org/Examiners/fallwinter2004/news2.asp.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. (2004). ARE Guidelines 3.0. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from http://www.ncarb.org/are/Areguide.html.
National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2005). Fast facts about alternate item formats and the NCLEX examination. Retrieved April 20, 2005, from http://www.ncsbn.org/pdfs/01_08_04_Alt_Itm.pdf.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Drasgow, F., Moberg, P. J., Mead, A. D., P. A. Keenan & M. A. Donovan (1998). Interactive video assessment of conflict resolution skills. Personnel Psychology, 51, 1–24.
O’Neill, K. & Folk, V. (1996, April). Innovative CBT item formats in a teacher licensing program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
Parshall, C. G. (1999, February). Audio CBTs: Measuring more through the use of speech and non-speech sound. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
Parshall, C. G. & Balizet, S. (2001). Audio computer-based tests (CBTs): An initial framework for the use of sound in computerized tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 5–15.
Parshall, C. G., Davey, T. & Pashley, P. (2000). Innovative item types for computerized testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. (pp. 129–148). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.
Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C. & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Parshall, C. G., Stewart, R & Ritter, J. (1996, April). Innovations: Sound, graphics, and alternative response modes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
Scalise, K. & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing ”Intermediate Constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from http://www.jtla.org.
Shea, J. A., Norcini, J. J., Baranowski, R. A., Langdon, L. O. & Popp, R. L. (1992). A comparison of video and print formats in the assessment of skill in interpreting cardiovascular motion studies. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 15, 325–340.
Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (Eds.), (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sireci, S. G. & Zenisky, A. L. (2006). Innovative item formats in computer-based testing: In pursuit of improved construct representations. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna, (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 329–347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
van der Linden, W. J. (2002). On complexity in CBTs. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 89-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vicino, F. L. & Moreno, K. E. (1997). Human factors in the CAT system: A pilot study. In W. A. Sands, B. K. Waters & J. R. McBride (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation (pp. 157–160). Washington, DC: APA.
Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T. & Bleiler, T. (1997). Computerized adaptive and fixed-item testing of music listening skill: A comparison of efficiency, precision, and concurrent validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 43–63.
Williamson, D. M., Bejar, I. I. & Hone, A. S. (1999). “Mental model” comparison of automated and human scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36 158–184.
Williamson, D. M., Mislevy, R. J. & Bejar, I. I. (Eds.), (2006). Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zenisky, A. L. & Sireci, S. G. (2002). Technological innovations in large-scale assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 337–362.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parshall, C.G., Harmes, J.C., Davey, T., Pashley, P.J. (2009). Innovative Items for Computerized Testing. In: van der Linden, W., Glas, C. (eds) Elements of Adaptive Testing. Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-85459-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-85461-8
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)