فاعلية القياس التكيفي متعدد المراحل باستخدام طريقة دلتا لتقدير الدرجات
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36473/ujhss.v62i2.2074الكلمات المفتاحية:
القياس التكيفي متعدد المراحل، طريقة دلتا لتقدير الدرجاتالملخص
هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى الكشف عن فاعلية القياس التكيفي متعدد المراحل باستخدام طريقة دلتا لتقدير الدرجات. وقد تم استخدام البيانات الناتجة عن تطبيق اختبار أوتيس لينون للقدرة العقلية العامة المستوى المقدم الصورة (J) على طلبة جامعة إب. وبلغ حجم عينة التدريج (1600) طالباً وطالبة، حيث تم تدريج البيانات باستخدام برنامج دلتا. وقد تكونت عينة القياس التكيفي من (130) مفحوصاً، استُخدمت بيانات استجاباتهم في القياس التكيفي الذي تكون من أربع مراحل. تكونت المرحلة الأولى من خمس مفردات، تلاها المراحل الثانية والثالثة والرابعة وتكونت كل منها من خمس مفردات أيضاً. ومن ثم تم حساب الدرجة لكل مفحوص في المراحل الأربع بشكل تراكمي، وتم مقارنتها بدرجة المفحوص المقدرة من الاختبار الخطي بمفرداته الثمانين. وأظهرت النتائج أن معامل الارتباط بين الدرجة المقدرة من الاختبار التكيفي والدرجة المقدرة من الاختبار الخطي بمفرداته الثمانين كان مقداره (0.878)، ومتوسط الفروق في الدرجة المقدرة كان بمقدار (5.728). كذلك بلغ الخطأ المعياري في المتوسط (0.096)، إضافة إلى ان الفرق بين الجذر التربيعي لمتوسط مربعات الخطأ في المتوسط كان (0.053)، الأمر الذي يفيد بفاعلية القياس التكيفي المبنى باستخدام طريقة دلتا.
التنزيلات
المراجع
• Al Sharifain, Nidal Kamal; Bani Atta, Zayed Saleh (2013). Tracing the effect of a number of steps of the multiple-graded questions and the shape of the distribution of their difficulty on the ability ratings of individuals, the difficulty of the questions and the information function of the test according to the partial estimation model. Journal Educational, 28(109), 213-275.
• Al-Balawi, Khadra Abdullah (2019). The effect of the difference in the ability of individuals on the accuracy of estimating vocabulary and individuals' parameters in multiple-choice items according to the three-way logistic model of the teacher. Journal of Specialized International 8(5), 78-91.
• Al-Bayaida, Alaa Muhammad Moazi (2011). Building an adaptive test of mathematical ability for the seventh grade according to the hierarchical strategy using item response theory. (Unpublished Master dissertation). Mutah University, Mutah. Retrieved from http://search.mandumah.com/Record/785139.
• Al-Bursan, Ismail Salameh (2012). The effectiveness of adaptive testing using dichotomous and polytomous items. Journal of King Saud University, Educational Sciences, and Islamic Studies, 24 (4), 1487-1518.
• Al-Shdifat, Sabah Jamil Fadoos (2008). Building an adaptive test to measure mathematical ability according to the two-stage strategy in the item response theory (unpublished master's dissertation). Yarmouk University, Irbid. Retrieved from http://search.mandumah.com/Record/742259.
• Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Dallas, A. (2014). The effects of routing and scoring within a computer adaptive multi-stage framework (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro).
• De Champlain, A. F. (2010). A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Medical education, 44(1), 109-117.
• Dimitrov, D. (2020b). Using the D-Scoring Method in Large-Scale Assessments [Workshop]. International Conference on Education & Training Evaluation, Education & Training Evaluation Commission (ETEC).
• Dimitrov, D. M. (2016). An Approach to Scoring and Equating Tests with Binary Items: Piloting with Large-Scale Assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 954–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416631100
• Dimitrov, D. M. (2018). The Delta-Scoring Method of Tests with Binary Items: A Note on True Score Estimation and Equating. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 805-825.
• Dimitrov, D. M. (2020a). Modeling of item response functions under the D-scoring method. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(1), 126-144.
• Dimitrov, D. M., Atanasov, D. V., & Luo, Y. (2021). Person-fit assessment under the D-scoring method. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 18(3), 111-123.
• Dimitrov, D.M., & Atanasov, D.V. (2020). Latent D-scoring modeling: Estimation of item and person parameters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 388-404.
• Domingue, B. W., & Dimitrov, D. M. (2015). A comparison of IRT theta estimates and delta scores from the perspective of additive conjoint measurement (Research Rep., RR-4-2015). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: National Center for Assessment.
• Domingue, B., & Dimitrov, D. (2021). A comparison of IRT theta estimates and delta scores from the perspective of additive conjoint measurement.
• Hambleton, R.H., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory. Principles and Application. Boston: k lower-nigh of tests and Item. Applied Psychological Meassurment,9(2), (136- 164).
• Han, K. T., Dimitrov, D. M., & Al-Mashari, F. (2019). Developing multistage tests using D-scoring method. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(5), 988-1008. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013164419841428
• Mousavi, S. A. (2015). The effect of person misfit on item parameter estimation A simulation study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta.
• Nasraween, Mueen Salman (2018). The accuracy of estimating the parameters of the paragraphs when using four logistic models within the framework of the paragraph response theory. Journal of Educational Sciences, 45(4), 179-205.
• Öztürk, N. B. (2019). How the Length and Characteristics of Routing Module Affect Ability Estimation in ca-MST? Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 164-170.
• Patsula, L. N. (1999). A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and multistage testing. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
• Rotou, O., Headrick, T. C., & Elmore, P. B. (2002). A proposed number correct scoring procedure based on classical true-score theory and multidimensional item response theory. International Journal of Testing, 2(2), 131-141.
• Sands, W., Walters, B., & Bride, J. (2001). Computerized adaptive testing: From Inquiry to operation. American psychological association. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
• Sari, H. İ., & Huggins-Manley, A. C. (2017). Examining content control in adaptive tests: Computerized adaptive testing vs. computerized adaptive multistage testing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(5).
• Vispoel, W. P. (1993). The Development and Evaluation of a Computerized Adaptive Test of Tonal Memory. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(2), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345403.
• Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T., & Bleiler, T. (1997). Computerized adaptive and fixed‐item testing of music listening skill: A comparison of efficiency, precision, and concurrent validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(1), 43-63.
• Wang, T., Hanson, B. A., & Lau, C. M. A. (1999). Reducing bias in CAT trait estimation: A comparison of approaches. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(3), 263-278.
• Warm, A. (1978). A Primer of Item Response Theory: Us Cost Guard Institute Oklahoma 73/69.
• Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving Measurement Quality and Efficiency with Adaptive Testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168200600408.
• Yurekli, H. (2010). The Relationship between Parameters from Some Polytomous Item Response Theory Models. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Florida State University Gainesville.
