A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Adaptive testing has a long but largely unrecognized history. The advent of computer-based testing has created new opportunities to incorporate adaptive testing into conventional programmes of study. Relatively recently software has been developed that can automate the delivery of summative assessme...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | MedEdPublish |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://mededpublish.org/articles/13-221/v1 |
| _version_ | 1797471957522841600 |
|---|---|
| author | Gergo Pinter José M. Pêgo Daniel Zahra Iain M. Robinson Thomas Gale Steven A. Burr Paul Millin Jolanta Kisielewska |
| author_facet | Gergo Pinter José M. Pêgo Daniel Zahra Iain M. Robinson Thomas Gale Steven A. Burr Paul Millin Jolanta Kisielewska |
| author_sort | Gergo Pinter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Adaptive testing has a long but largely unrecognized history. The advent of computer-based testing has created new opportunities to incorporate adaptive testing into conventional programmes of study. Relatively recently software has been developed that can automate the delivery of summative assessments that adapt by difficulty or content. Both types of adaptive testing require a large item bank that has been suitably quality assured. Adaptive testing by difficulty enables more reliable evaluation of individual candidate performance, although at the expense of transparency in decision making, and requiring unidirectional navigation. Adaptive testing by content enables reduction in compensation and targeted individual support to enable assurance of performance in all the required outcomes, although at the expense of discovery learning. With both types of adaptive testing, candidates are presented a different set of items to each other, and there is the potential for that to be perceived as unfair. However, when candidates of different abilities receive the same items, they may receive too many they can answer with ease, or too many that are too difficult to answer. Both situations may be considered unfair as neither provides the opportunity to demonstrate what they know. Adapting by difficulty addresses this. Similarly, when everyone is presented with the same items, but answer different items incorrectly, not providing individualized support and opportunity to demonstrate performance in all the required outcomes by revisiting content previously answered incorrectly could also be considered unfair; a point addressed when adapting by content. We review the educational rationale behind the evolution of adaptive testing and consider its inherent strengths and limitations. We explore the continuous pursuit of improvement of examination methodology and how software can facilitate personalized assessment. We highlight how this can serve as a catalyst for learning and refinement of curricula; fostering engagement of learner and educator alike. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:55:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ccfc82afd4b34a8aaa89c52ecca98c5a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2312-7996 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:55:28Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | MedEdPublish |
| spelling | doaj.art-ccfc82afd4b34a8aaa89c52ecca98c5a2023-11-24T01:00:00ZengF1000 Research LtdMedEdPublish2312-79962023-10-011321260A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]Gergo Pinter0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1917-3203José M. Pêgo1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9497-6543Daniel Zahra2Iain M. Robinson3Thomas Gale4Steven A. Burr5https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0222-605XPaul Millin6https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9725-7846Jolanta Kisielewska7https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3959-0787University of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKUniversity of Minho, Braga, PortugalUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKLancaster University, Lancaster, England, UKUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UKAdaptive testing has a long but largely unrecognized history. The advent of computer-based testing has created new opportunities to incorporate adaptive testing into conventional programmes of study. Relatively recently software has been developed that can automate the delivery of summative assessments that adapt by difficulty or content. Both types of adaptive testing require a large item bank that has been suitably quality assured. Adaptive testing by difficulty enables more reliable evaluation of individual candidate performance, although at the expense of transparency in decision making, and requiring unidirectional navigation. Adaptive testing by content enables reduction in compensation and targeted individual support to enable assurance of performance in all the required outcomes, although at the expense of discovery learning. With both types of adaptive testing, candidates are presented a different set of items to each other, and there is the potential for that to be perceived as unfair. However, when candidates of different abilities receive the same items, they may receive too many they can answer with ease, or too many that are too difficult to answer. Both situations may be considered unfair as neither provides the opportunity to demonstrate what they know. Adapting by difficulty addresses this. Similarly, when everyone is presented with the same items, but answer different items incorrectly, not providing individualized support and opportunity to demonstrate performance in all the required outcomes by revisiting content previously answered incorrectly could also be considered unfair; a point addressed when adapting by content. We review the educational rationale behind the evolution of adaptive testing and consider its inherent strengths and limitations. We explore the continuous pursuit of improvement of examination methodology and how software can facilitate personalized assessment. We highlight how this can serve as a catalyst for learning and refinement of curricula; fostering engagement of learner and educator alike.https://mededpublish.org/articles/13-221/v1Assessment adaptive testing personalised progress testing fairness different questionseng |
| spellingShingle | Gergo Pinter José M. Pêgo Daniel Zahra Iain M. Robinson Thomas Gale Steven A. Burr Paul Millin Jolanta Kisielewska A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] MedEdPublish Assessment adaptive testing personalised progress testing fairness different questions eng |
| title | A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_full | A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_fullStr | A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_full_unstemmed | A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_short | A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] |
| title_sort | narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education version 1 peer review 2 approved |
| topic | Assessment adaptive testing personalised progress testing fairness different questions eng |
| url | https://mededpublish.org/articles/13-221/v1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gergopinter anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT josempego anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT danielzahra anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT iainmrobinson anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT thomasgale anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT stevenaburr anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT paulmillin anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT jolantakisielewska anarrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT gergopinter narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT josempego narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT danielzahra narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT iainmrobinson narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT thomasgale narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT stevenaburr narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT paulmillin narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved AT jolantakisielewska narrativereviewofadaptivetestinganditsapplicationtomedicaleducationversion1peerreview2approved |