Differences Between Self‐Adapted and Computerized Adaptive Tests: A Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

Self‐adapted testing has been described as a variation of computerized adaptive testing that reduces test anxiety and thereby enhances test performance. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of these proposed effects of self‐adapted tests (SATs); meta‐analysis procedures were used to estimate differences between SATs and computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in proficiency estimates and post‐test anxiety levels across studies in which these two types of tests have been compared. After controlling for measurement error, the results showed that SATs yielded proficiency estimates that were 0.12 standard deviation units higher and post‐test anxiety levels that were 0.19 standard deviation units lower than those yielded by CATs. We speculate about possible reasons for these differences and discuss advantages and disadvantages of using SATs in operational settings.