The construction of assessments in computerized adaptive testing (CAT) usually involves fulfilling a large number of statistical and non-statistical constraints to meet test specifications. To improve measurement precision and test validity, the multidimensional priority index (MPI) and the modified MPI (MMPI) can be used to monitor many constraints simultaneously under a between-item and a within-item multidimensional framework, respectively. As both item selection methods can be implemented easily and computed efficiently, they are important and useful for operational CATs; however, no thorough simulation study has compared the performance of these two item selection methods under two different item bank structures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficiency of the MMPI and the MPI item selection methods under the between-item and within-item multidimensional CAT through simulations. The MMPI and the MPI item selection methods yielded similar performance in measurement precision for both multidimensional pools and yielded similar performance in exposure control and constraint management for the between-item multidimensional pool. For the within-item multidimensional pool, the MPI method yielded slightly better performance in exposure control but yielded slightly worse performance in constraint management than the MMPI method.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#24,575,889
of 34,150,266 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychological Measurement
#356
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,484
of 339,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychological Measurement
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,150,266 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them
