MEASUREMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES TEST INSIGHTSJune 2009
 Greetings   With computer-based tests, test takers have the ability to go back and review items.  This brief study investigates the relationship between the amount of time spent reviewing items and candidate test performance. Lidia Martinez Manager Test Development and Analysis
Time Usage and Candidate Performance
Computer based testing provides the opportunity to track the amount of time candidates spend responding to and reviewing each exam item.  The time usage of a test was studied to understand the relationship between the amount of time a candidate takes to review items and their final score.  For purposes of this study, scores are reported as percent correct without any consideration for calibrated item difficulty or test equating.  The question is the impact of the amount of time used for review on candidate scores.

This candidate population took a multiple choice examination and was divided into three groups based on the mean amount of time they used to review items.  Candidates in Group 1 used an average of 5 seconds or less per item to review.  Candidates in Group 2 used an average of 5 - 20 seconds per item to review and candidates in Group 3 used an average of more than 20 seconds per item to review.  These groups were compared by 1) mean time spent initially responding per item; 2) mean time spent reviewing per item; 3) total test percent correct.  All time is given in seconds.  An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

An analysis of variance showed that there was a significant difference in the amount of time used to initially respond to items (p = .039).  A post hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD test revealed that Group 3's average time spent initially responding to items was significantly less than Group 1's average time (p = .030).

Descriptive Statistics for Time Used to Initially Respond to Items
 Group based on time used to review Mean Time per Item SD Min Max Group 1: Average Review Time ≤ 5 sec. 57.19 15.33 35.25 84.31 Group 2: 5 sec. < Avg. Rev. Time ≤ 20 sec. 54.39 13.04 31.25 75.33 Group 3: Average Review Time > 20 sec. 47.68 9.78 30.54 63.43 Total Population 54.22 13.87 30.54 84.31

An ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in the amount of time used to review items (p < .001).  A post hoc analysis revealed all groups were significantly different from one another (all p values < .001).  Since the groups were divided based on amount of time taken to review, these results are not surprising.

Descriptive Statistics for Time Used to Review Items after Initial Response
 Group based on time used to review Mean Time per Item SD Min Max Group 1: Average Review Time ≤ 5 sec. 1.25 1.37 .00 4.71 Group 2: 5 sec. < Avg. Rev. Time ≤ 20 sec. 12.05 4.35 5.31 19.76 Group 3: Average Review Time > 20 sec. 27.45 6.79 20.57 44.26 Total Population 10.55 10.71 .00 44.26

An ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference in percent correct scores based on the amount of time spent reviewing items (p = .335). Based on this study, the amount of time spent reviewing items does not seem to have an effect on candidate test performance.

Descriptive Statistics for Candidate Total Percent Correct Scores
 Group based on time used to review Mean % Correct SD Min Max Group 1: Average Review Time ≤ 5 sec. 59% 8% 40% 75% Group 2: 5 sec. < Avg. Rev. Time ≤ 20 sec. 61% 7% 51% 74% Group 3: Average Review Time > 20 sec. 61% 8% 47% 74% Total Population 60% 8% 40% 75%

For this data sample, candidates who spent more time reviewing items, spent less time initially responding to items.  This could be due to the fact that if more time is taken initially to view items, there will be less time remaining after the first view of the exam to review items. While candidates who spent more time reviewing items earned slightly higher percent correct scores, this is not a trend, since there was only a 2% difference in group performance.  The mean percent correct for each group is statistically comparable.

 Measurement Research Associates, Inc. 505 North Lake Shore Dr., Suite 1304 Chicago, IL  60611 Phone: (312) 822-9648     Fax: (312) 822-9650 www.MeasurementResearch.com

Coming Rasch-related Events
Feb 26 - June, 2018Online Advanced course in Rasch Measurement Theory (D.Andrich), University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, http://www.education.uwa.edu.au/ppl/courses
March 23, 2018, Fri.12th Annual UK Rasch User Group Meeting, Loughborough University, Loughborough, England, www.rasch.org.uk
April 10-12, 2018, Tues.-Thurs. Rasch Conference: IOMW, New York, NY, www.iomw.org
April 13-17, 2018, Fri.-Tues. AERA, New York, NY, www.aera.net
May 22 - 24, 2018, Tues.-Thur. EALTA 2018 pre-conference workshop (Introduction to Rasch measurement using WINSTEPS and FACETS, Thomas Eckes & Frank Weiss-Motz), https://ealta2018.testdaf.de
May 25 - June 22, 2018, Fri.-Fri. On-line workshop: Practical Rasch Measurement - Core Topics (E. Smith, Winsteps), www.statistics.com
June 27 - 29, 2018, Wed.-Fri. Measurement at the Crossroads: History, philosophy and sociology of measurement, Paris, France., https://measurement2018.sciencesconf.org
June 29 - July 27, 2018, Fri.-Fri. On-line workshop: Practical Rasch Measurement - Further Topics (E. Smith, Winsteps), www.statistics.com
July 25 - July 27, 2018, Wed.-Fri. Pacific-Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS), (Preconference workshops July 23-24, 2018) Fudan University, Shanghai, China "Applying Rasch Measurement in Language Assessment and across the Human Sciences", www.promsociety.org
July 29 - August 4, 2018 Vth International Summer School `Applied Psychometrics in Psychology and Education`, Institute of Education at the Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia, https://ioe.hse.ru/en/announcements/215681182.html
Aug. 10 - Sept. 7, 2018, Fri.-Fri. On-line workshop: Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (E. Smith, Facets), www.statistics.com
Sept. 3 - 6, 2018, Mon.-Thurs. IMEKO World Congress, Belfast, Northern Ireland, www.imeko2018.org
Oct. 12 - Nov. 9, 2018, Fri.-Fri. On-line workshop: Practical Rasch Measurement - Core Topics (E. Smith, Winsteps), www.statistics.com