{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01098901098901099, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033812341504649195, 'mean_word_length': 5.365591397849462, '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}}
Classical versus IRT Statistical Test Specifications for Building Test Forms (NCME 2010)

The stability of test forms assembled to meet either classical and IRT or IRT statistical specifications was evaluated through a simulation study. Both approaches offer an interesting mix of both theoretical and practical advantages and drawbacks, with neither emerging as a clear favorite on paper. Our intent was to identify if and whether either offers compelling performance advantages under realistic operational conditions. The most notable result of the study was the relatively small difference evident between the performance of the classical and IRT assembly methods. Both methods were capable of producing a series of test forms whose characteristics resembled the target form. As similar as these forms were to the target, they were even more similar to one another. The similarity in performance across methods may mean that the practitioner’s choice depends largely on preference or operational convenience. Additional evidence needed to support this conclusion would need to be gathered by addressing some of the shortcomings of the current study. IRT vs CTT Test Specifications