Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T04:17:58.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal Partitioning of Testing Time: Theoretical Properties and Practical Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Tianyou Wang  and
Jiawei Zhang
Tianyou Wang*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Jiawei Zhang
Affiliation:
New York University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Tianyou Wang, Center for Advanved Studies in Measurement and Assessment, University of Iowa, 210B Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with optimal partitioning of limited testing time in order to achieve maximum total test score. Nonlinear optimization theory was used to analyze this problem. A general case using a generic item response model is first presented. A special case that applies a response time model proposed by Wang and Hanson (2005) is also presented. Theoretical properties of the optimal solution are derived. Their practical implications to optimal test-taking strategies are also discussed. The theoretical properties are in general agreement with the conventional advice to the examinees on pacing strategy.

Keywords

test-taking strategypacing strategyresponse time modeloptimization theory
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 105 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertsekas, D.P. (1999). Nonlinear programming, (2nd ed.). Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific.Google Scholar
Mehrens, W.A., Popham, W.J., & Ryan, J.M. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 17, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millman, J. (1969). How to take tests, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Millman, J., Bishop, H.I., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis of test wiseness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redencich, M.C. (1985). S.T.A.R.: A strategy for taking timed tests. Forum for Reading, 17, 29–34.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. (1987). Comparing item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 52, 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskam, E.E. (1997). Models for speed and time-limit tests. In van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 187–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, K. (2001). Developments in measurement of persons and items by means of item response models. Behaviormetrika, 28, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vattanapath, R., & Jaiprayoon, K. (1999, December). An assessment of the effectiveness of the teaching test-taking strategies for multiple-choice English reading comprehension tests, SLLT Occasional Papers, Vol. 8. Bangkok, Thailand: Department of Foreign Languages, Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Verhelst, N.D., Verstralen, H.H.F.M., & Jansen, M.G.H. (1997). A logistic model for time-limit tests. In van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 169–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, T., & Hanson, B.A. (2005). Development and calibration of an item response model that incorporates response time. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar