Item exposure rates are comparable across engines, with most items below 10%, and the CBE Reading item-use rate is lower than COLO's¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-09 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Most items had exposure rates below 10% on both engines; CBE's Reading item-use rate was lower than COLO's, attributed to the passage item selection algorithm difference and CBE's much smaller sample size. → Bo 2020
Evidence¶
Bo 2020¶
Bo, E., & Meyer, P. (2020). Comparability of MAP Growth tests administered through different technology and psychometric infrastructure: An engine evaluation study based on empirical data. Portland, OR: NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/comparability-of-map-growth-tests-administered-through-different-technology-and-psychometric-infrastructure-an-engine-evaluation-study-based-on-empirical-data/
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Summary of the item exposure analysis of the empirical comparability study, as stated in the report's executive summary of findings. The article attributes the lower CBE Reading item-use rate to the passage item selection algorithm difference and the much smaller CBE sample, leaving more items than students at the lower end of the scale.
"Item exposure rates are comparable, with most items having an item exposure rate below 10%. The CBE Reading item-use rate is lower than COLO’s. This difference was due to (1) the differences in the passage item selection algorithm and (2) the CBE sample size being much smaller than COLO’s."
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
- Differences in test-taking engagement across content categories were primarily due to differences in the reading load of items — related
- CBE shows better engine adaptivity than COLO, especially for extremely low or high achievement students — related
- Test lengths are comparable across engines, but CBE test durations are higher than COLO's in both terms and content areas, more prominently in Reading — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cbe-colo-item-exposure-comparable |
title |
Item exposure rates are comparable across engines, with most items below 10%, and the CBE Reading item-use rate is lower than COLO's |
description |
Item exposure rates are comparable across engines, with most items below 10%, and the CBE Reading item-use rate is lower than COLO's |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
source_checked |
2026-10-09 |
recheck_by |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — bo-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.