Adaptive testing with the GGUM-RANK multidimensional forced choice model: Comparison of pair, triplet, and tetrad scoring.

Abstract

Likert-type measures have been criticized in psychological assessment because they are vulnerable to response biases, including central tendency, acquiescence, leniency, halo, and socially desirable responding. As an alternative, multidimensional forced choice (MFC) testing has been proposed to address these concerns. A number of researchers have developed item response theory (IRT) models for MFC data and have examined latent trait estimation with tests of different dimensionality and length. Research has also explored the advantages of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) with MFC pair tests having as many as 25 dimensions, but there have been no published studies on CAT with MFC triplets or tetrads. Thus, in this research we aimed to address that issue. We used recently developed item information functions for an MFC ranking model to compare the benefits of CAT with MFC pair, triplet, and tetrad tests. A simulation study showed that CAT substantially outperformed nonadaptive testing for latent trait estimation across MFC formats. More importantly, CAT with MFC pairs provided estimation accuracy similar to or better than that from tests of equivalent numbers of nonadaptive MFC triplets. On the basis of these findings, implications and recommendations are further discussed for constructing MFC measures to use in psychological contexts.