Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140187›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Accounting for item calibration error in computerized adaptive testing.

Aron Fink, Christoph König, Andreas Frey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Multidimensional Bayesian adaptive testing.Behavior research methods · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aron FinkGoethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt, Germany. a.fink@psych.uni-frankfurt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0624-1131
Christoph KönigGoethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andreas FreyGoethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

Hessian State Chancellery in the area of the Minister for Digital Strategy and Development 71575188
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In computerized adaptive testing (CAT), item parameter estimates derived from calibration studies are considered to be known and are used as fixed values for adaptive item selection and ability estimation. This is not completely accurate because these item parameter estimates contain a certain degree of error. If this error is random, the typical CAT procedure leads to standard errors of the final ability estimates that are too small. If the calibration error is large, it has been shown that the accuracy of the ability estimates is negatively affected due to the capitalization on chance problem, especially for extreme ability levels. In order to find a solution for this fundamental problem of CAT, we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine three approaches that can be used to consider the uncertainty of item parameter estimates in CAT. The first two approaches used a measurement error modeling approach in which item parameters were treated as covariates that contained errors. The third approach was fully Bayesian. Each of the approaches was compared with regard to the quality of the resulting ability estimates. The results indicate that each of the three approaches is capable of reducing bias and the mean squared error (MSE) of the ability estimates, especially for high item calibration errors. The Bayesian approach clearly outperformed the other approaches. We recommend the Bayesian approach, especially for application areas in which the recruitment of a large calibration sample is infeasible.

Indexed as

CalibrationBayes TheoremComputer SimulationMonte Carlo MethodBayesian techniquesCalibration errorComputerized adaptive testingItem response theory

Identifiers

PMID40140187
PMCPMC11947018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.