Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.1.12

A computerized adaptive testing (CAT) procedure was simulated with ordinal polytomous personality data collected using a conventional paper-and-pencil testing format. An adapted Dutch version of the dominance scale of Gough and Heilbrun’s Adjective Check List (ACL) was used. This version contained Likert response scales with five categories. Item parameters were estimated using Samejima’s graded response model from the responses of 1,925 subjects. The CAT procedure was simulated using the responses of 1,517 other subjects. The value of the required standard error in the stopping rule of the CAT was manipulated. The relationship between CAT latent trait estimates and estimates based on all dominance items was studied. Additionally, the pattern of relationships between the CAT latent trait estimates and the other ACL scales was compared to that between latent trait estimates based on the entire item pool and the other ACL scales. The CAT procedure resulted in latent trait estimates qualitatively equivalent to latent trait estimates based on all items, while a substantial reduction of the number of used items could be realized (at the stopping rule of 0.4 about 33% of the 36 items was used).

References

  • Bock, R.D. , Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35, 179–197. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chang, H. , Qian, J. , Zhiliang, Y. (2001). A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing with b blocking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 333–341. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dodd, B.G. , De Ayala, R.J. , Koch, W.R. (1995). Computerized adaptive testing with polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 5–22. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dodd, B.G. , Koch, W.R. , De Ayala, R.J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 129–143. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drasgow, F. , Olson Buchanan, J.B. (Eds.) (1999). Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Embretson, S.E. , Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Finger, M.S. , Ones, D.S. (1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 58–66. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gough, H.G. , Heilbrun, A.B. (1980). The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hendriks, C. , Meiland, F. , Bakker, M. , Loos, I. (1995). Eenzaamheid en persoonlijkheidskenmerken [Loneliness and personality attributes]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hol, A.M. , Vorst, H.C.M. , Mellenbergh, G.J. (2001). Toepassing van een computergestuurde adaptieve testprocedure op persoonlijkheidsdata [Application of a computerized adaptive test procedure on personality data]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 56, 119–133. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Koch, W.R. , Dodd, B.G. , Fitzpatrick, S.J. (1990). Computerized adaptive measurements of attitudes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, 20–30. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mead, A.D. , Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meijer, R.R. , Nering, M.L. (1999). Computerized adaptive testing: Overview and introduction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 187–194. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oosterveld, P. , Vorst, H.C.M. (1998). Constructie van meetinstrumenten [Construction of measurement instruments]. In W.P. van den Brink, & G.J. Mellenbergh (Eds.), Testleer en testconstructie [Test theory and test construction] (pp. 303–337). Amsterdam: Boom. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207–230. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reise, S.P. (1999). Personality measurement issues viewed through the eyes of IRT. In S.E. Embretson, S.L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know (pp. 219–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rouse, S.V. , Finger, M.S. , Butcher, J.N. (1999). Advances in clinical personality measurement: An item response theory analysis of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 282–307. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W.J. van der Linden, & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York: Springer-Verlag. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Singh, J. , Howell, R.D. , Rhoads, G.K. (1990). Adaptive designs for Likert-type data: An approach for implementing marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 304–321. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thissen, D. (1991). Multilog 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Linden, W.J. , Reese, L.M. (1998). A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259–270. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Waller, N.G. (1999). Searching for structure in the MMPI. In S.E. Embretson, S.L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know. (pp. 185–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Waller, N.G. (2003). MicroFACT: A microcomputer factor analysis program for ordered polytomous data and mainframe size problems (Version 2.1) [Computer Software]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Waller, N.G. , Reise, S.P. (1989). Computerized adaptive personality assessment: An illustration with the Absorption Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1051–1058. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar