{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021052631578947368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009287925696594427, 'mean_word_length': 5.387351778656127, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of the Validities of a Traditional Item-Allocation Method and of An Item-Sampling Procedure in the Construction of in-Class Examinations in Intermediate Algebra

Basically a replication of an earlier investigation by Poggio and Glasnapp (1973), this study offered from the standpoint of several psychometric characteristics a comparison of a traditional mode of item assembly with one of item sampling employed in the construction of three in-class midterm achievement examinations in intermediate algebra for a sample of 101 community college students. For two of three in-class midterm examinations reliable differences existed between mean scores of constant-item (traditionally devised) test forms and those on corresponding item-sampled (content-sampled) test forms. Relative to performance on a final achievement examination of 60 multiple-choice items, the validity coefficients of scores derived from two of the three sets of the six item-sampled test forms employed were lower than those realized for the two corresponding single constant-item test forms. Furthermore, relative to the same criterion measure multiple correlation coefficients of .571 and .521, respectively, were found from optimally weighted composites of the three sets of in-class midterm examination scores on the constant-item test forms and on the item-sampled test forms. Thus the item-sampled midterm test forms appeared to be no more and perhaps slightly less valid than traditionally assembled constant-item test forms in the prediction of success on a final objective achievement examination in intermediate algebra.