Across administrations, the CBE may re-administer an item to the same student before the longitudinal exposure window elapses when the item bank cannot fulfill test requirements, which COLO does not allow¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An item can be re-administered to the same student within the 14-month timespan on the CBE if and only if the item bank cannot fulfill the test requirements; this is not allowed on COLO. → Hu 2021

Evidence¶

Hu 2021¶

Hu, A., Chien, M., & Meyer, P. (2021). Comparability of MAP Growth tests administered through different technology and psychometric infrastructure: A simulation study. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/comparability-of-map-growth-tests-administered-through-different-technology-and-psychometric-infrastructure-a-simulation-study/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Longitudinal item exposure counts across administrations (Tables 4.16–4.19) were compared between engines. On the CBE the longitudinal exposure control was changed "from a constraint to a guideline" to prevent test crashes from item starvation.

"an item can be administered again to the same student within the 14-month timespan if and only if the item bank cannot fulfill the test requirements. This is not allowed on COLO but is on the CBE due to the longitudinal item exposure control being changed from a constraint to a guideline to prevent the test crash as a result of item starvation."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Within a single administration, COLO administered more items and overexposed fewer items than the CBE, likely due to its randomesque exposure-control procedure — related
• Adaptivity and score reliability of both engines depend on item-pool depth; the CBE often performed better than COLO for extreme low or high achievers when item banks were shallow — related