A comparison of content-balancing procedures for estimating multiple clinical domains in computerized adaptive testing: Relative precision, validity, and detection of persons with misfitting responses

Barth B. Riley, Michael L. Dennis, Kendon J. Conrad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

This simulation study sought to compare four different computerized adaptive testing (CAT) content-balancing procedures designed for use in a multidimensional assessment with respect to measurement precision, symptom severity classification, validity of clinical diagnostic recommendations, and sensitivity to atypical responding. The four content-balancing procedures were (a) no content balancing, (b) screener-based, (c) mixed (screener plus content balancing), and (d) full content balancing. In full content balancing and in mixed content balancing following administration of the screener items, item selection was based on (a) whether the target number of items for the item's subscale was reached and (b) the item's information function. Mixed and full content balancing provided the best representation of items from each of the main subscales of the Internal Mental Distress Scale. These procedures also resulted in higher CAT to full-scale correlations for the Trauma and Homicidal/Suicidal Thought subscales and improved detection of atypical responding.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)410-423
Number of pages14
JournalApplied Psychological Measurement
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • computerized adaptive testing
  • diagnostic classification
  • Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN)
  • Rasch measurement
  • substance use disorder

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of content-balancing procedures for estimating multiple clinical domains in computerized adaptive testing: Relative precision, validity, and detection of persons with misfitting responses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this