Detection of Aberrant Testing Behaviour in Unproctored CAT via a Verification Test
Guardat en:
| Publicat a: | International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education vol. 12, no. 3 (2025), p. 681 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Altres autors: | |
| Publicat: |
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
|
| Matèries: | |
| Accés en línia: | Citation/Abstract Full text outside of ProQuest |
| Etiquetes: |
Sense etiquetes, Sigues el primer a etiquetar aquest registre!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 3257417742 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 035 | |a 3257417742 | ||
| 045 | 2 | |b d20250101 |b d20251231 | |
| 084 | |a EJ1482832 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Balta, Ebru | |
| 245 | 1 | |a Detection of Aberrant Testing Behaviour in Unproctored CAT via a Verification Test | |
| 260 | |b International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education |c 2025 | ||
| 513 | |a Report Article | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a 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 [log-likelihood subscript z] person-fit statistic (PFS) using no-stage and two-stage ([log-likelihood subscript 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 [log-likelihood subscript z] in classifying examinees was higher than its sensitivity performance in no-stage and two-stage analyses. However, the sensitivity performance of [log-likelihood subscript z] was higher in two-stage analysis. | |
| 653 | |a Adaptive Testing | ||
| 653 | |a Computer Assisted Testing | ||
| 653 | |a Paper and Pencil Tests | ||
| 653 | |a Test Validity | ||
| 653 | |a Audits (Verification) | ||
| 653 | |a Cheating | ||
| 653 | |a Student Behavior | ||
| 653 | |a Scores | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Uçar, Arzu | |
| 773 | 0 | |t International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education |g vol. 12, no. 3 (2025), p. 681 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t ERIC | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3257417742/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full text outside of ProQuest |u http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1482832 |