The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Bayesian Random Effects Model for Testlets
Abstract
Standard item response theory (IRT) models fit to dichotomous examination responses ignore the fact that sets of items (testlets) often come from a single common stimuli (e.g. a reading comprehension passage). In this setting, all items given to an examinee are unlikely to be conditionally independent (given examinee proficiency). Models that assume conditional independence will overestimate the precision with which examinee proficiency is measured. Overstatement of precision may lead to inaccurate inferences such as prematurely ending an examination in which the stopping rule is based on the estimated standard error of examinee proficiency (e.g., an adaptive test). To model examinations that may be a mixture of independent items and testlets, we modified one standard IRT model to include an additional random effect for items nested within the same testlet. We use a Bayesian framework to facilitate posterior inference via a Data Augmented Gibbs Sampler (DAGS; Tanner & Wong, 1987). The modified and standard IRT models are both applied to a data set from a disclosed form of the SAT. We also provide simulation results that indicates that the degree of precision bias is a function of the variability of the testlet effects, as well as the testlet design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 · Cited by 6,606
Cited by
Focus Article: On the Structure of Educational Assessments
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003) · Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective · doi:10.1207/s15366359mea0101_02 · Cited by 802
Bayesian Estimation of a Multilevel IRT Model Using Gibbs Sampling
Fox, J.-P., & Glas, C. A. W. (2001) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294839 · Cited by 398
Huggins, A. C., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Dawson, K. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.005 · Cited by 52
Item Response Theory: A Statistical Framework for Educational and Psychological Measurement
Chen, Y., Li, X., Liu, J., & Ying, Z. (2025) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/23-sts896 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X.
- Venue
- Psychometrika
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-168
- ISSN
- 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
- 1860-0980
- OpenAlex
- W4234508882
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Bayesian Random Effects Model for Testlets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02294533
- The paper
- Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian Random Effects Model for Testlets. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294533
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.