Hybrid Computerized Adaptive Testing: From Group Sequential Design to Fully Sequential Design

Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and multistage testing (MST) have become two of the most popular modes in large‐scale computer‐based sequential testing.  Though most designs of CAT and MST exhibit strength and weakness in recent large‐scale implementations, there is no simple answer to the question of which design is better because different modes may fit different practical situations. This article proposes a hybrid adaptive framework to combine both CAT and MST, inspired by an analysis of the history of CAT and MST. The proposed procedure is a design which transitions from a group sequential design to a fully sequential design. This allows for the robustness of MST in early stages, but also shares the advantages of CAT in later stages with fine tuning of the ability estimator once its neighborhood has been identified. Simulation results showed that hybrid designs following our proposed principles provided comparable or even better estimation accuracy and efficiency than standard CAT and MST designs, especially for examinees at the two ends of the ability range.     

Are We Ready to Recommend a College Readiness Index? A Reply to Gaertner and McClarty (2015)

In an article published in Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Gaertner and McClarty (2015) discuss a college readiness index based, in part, on nonacademic or noncognitive factors measured in middle school. Such an index is laudable as it incorporates important constructs beyond academic achievement measures that may be important in assessing college readiness. It also holds potential in identifying areas of need at a critical time and can theoretically inform important interventions that may be necessary prior to the later stages of high school. However, one of the noncognitive factors—motivation—appeared to be theoretically incomplete, underrepresented, and contained items irrelevant to the construct of academic motivation. We offer our concerns about the validity of this factor as measured by the index and the associated implications about the consequences of using this to inform educational interventions. Through this commentary, we hope to offer constructive feedback on future research that can build upon Gaertner and McClarty's important work.     

Thoughts on a Multidimensional Middle School Index of College Readiness

The findings of the Gaertner and McClarty article (2015) raised awareness on two extremely important topics related to college readiness: First, to effect change, we must measure students' progression towards college readiness throughout their K‐12 career rather than just at the culmination of high school. Second, college readiness encompasses more than academic preparation, and indices can be designed to weight additional factors according to their prediction of readiness. The reply by Lazowski, Barron, Kosovich, and Hulleman (this issue) added to the conversation by raising important issues around the measurement of motivation. In this reply, we provide our own thoughts on college and career readiness and offer ideas for additional work to further the development of college and career readiness indices.     

Spaced Retrieval Practice Increases College Students’ Short- and Long-Term Retention of Mathematics Knowledge

Educational Psychology Review - A major challenge college students face is retaining the knowledge they acquire in their classes, especially in cumulative disciplines such as engineering, where...