Novel item selection strategies for cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing: A heuristic search framework
Open accessAbstract
The computerized adaptive form of cognitive diagnostic testing, CD-CAT, has gained increasing attention in the domain of personalized measurements for its ability to categorize individual mastery status of fine-grained attributes more accurately and efficiently through administering items tailored to one's ability progressively. How to select the next item based on previous response(s) is crucial for the success of CD-CAT. Previous item selection strategies for CD-CAT have often followed a greedy or semi-greedy approach, which makes it difficult to strike a balance between diagnostic performance and item bank utilization. To address this issue, this study takes a graph perspective and transforms the item selection problem in CD-CAT into a path-searching problem, in which paths refer to possible test construction and nodes refer to individual items. A heuristic function is defined to predict the prospect of a path, indicating how well the corresponding test can diagnose the current examinee. Two search mechanisms with different biases towards item exposure control are proposed to approximate the optimal path with the best prospect. The first unused item on the resulting path is selected as the next item. The above components compose a novel CD-CAT item selection framework based on heuristic search. Simulation studies are conducted under a variety of conditions regarding bank designs, bank-quality conditions, and testing scenarios. The results are compared with different types of classic item selection strategies in CD-CAT, showing that the proposed framework can enhance bank utilization at a smaller cost of diagnostic performance.
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
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.
Cites
Capitalization on Item Calibration Error in Adaptive Testing
van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2000) · Applied Measurement in Education · doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1301_2 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Cao, X., Lin, Y., Liu, D., Zheng, F., & Duh, H. B.-L.
- Affiliations
- La Trobe University (AU)
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Henan Normal University (CN)
- Guangzhou City University of Technology (CN)
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Lin, Ying
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2023-09-25
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2859-2885
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- OpenAlex
- W4387010179
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2021A1515010844, 2023A1515011349)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Keywords
- item selection strategies, heuristic search, path finding, item exposure control, diagnostic performance
- MeSH terms
- Heuristics, Cognition, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics
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