This analysis reveals how a verification test identifies aberrant testing behavior in unproctored computerized adaptive testing, suggesting implications for score validity.
Unproctored Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) is gaining traction due to its convenience, flexibility, and scalability, particularly in high-stakes assessments. However, the lack of proctor can give rise to aberrant testing behavior. These behaviors can impair the validity of test scores. This paper explores the use of a verification test to detect aberrant testing behavior in unproctored CAT environments. This study aims to use multiple measures to detect aberrant response patterns in CAT via a paper-and-pencil (P&P) test as well as to compare the sensitivity and specificity performances of the l_z person-fit statistic (PFS) using no-stage and two-stage (l_z is used after the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KLD) measure) methods in different conditions. Three factors were manipulated – the aberrance percentage, the aberrance scenario, and the aberrant examinee’s ability range. The study found that in all scenarios, the specificity performance of l_z in classifying examinees was higher than its sensitivity performance in no-stage and two-stage analyses. However, the sensitivity performance of〖 l〗_z was higher in two-stage analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
BALTA et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: