Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

10.7K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
10.7K
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

73.1K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
73.1K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

1.4K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
1.4K
Distance Corrections01:15

Distance Corrections

24
To achieve precise distance measurements, especially in surveying and construction, certain corrections must be applied to account for potential sources of error like the standardization errors, temperature variations, and slope adjustments.Standardization error emerges when measurement equipment undergoes changes, such as wear, repairs, or weather impacts. To address this, surveyors compare the equipment’s readings to a standard. This process identifies any deviation that might lead to...
24
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

166
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
166
Reliability and Validity01:29

Reliability and Validity

12.6K
Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
12.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

FAS-controlled T cells drive lymphoproliferation through glycolysis without effector differentiation.

Journal of human immunity·2026
Same author

Somatic STAT5B<sup>N642H</sup> mutations shape variable immune landscapes resulting in heterogenous immune diseases.

The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology·2025
Same author

A Machine-Learning-Based Approach to Informing Student Admission Decisions.

Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)·2025
Same author

Novick Meets Bayes: Improving the Assessment of Individual Students in Educational Practice and Research by Capitalizing on Assessors' Prior Beliefs.

Educational and psychological measurement·2024
Same author

The Microbiome Modifies Manifestations of Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis in Perforin-Deficient Mice.

European journal of immunology·2024
Same author

Methodological aspects of the highly adaptive testing design for PISA.

Frontiers in psychology·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 23, 2025

Computerized Adaptive Testing System of Functional Assessment of Stroke
05:21

Computerized Adaptive Testing System of Functional Assessment of Stroke

Published on: January 7, 2019

5.7K

Accounting for item calibration error in computerized adaptive testing.

Aron Fink1, Christoph König2, Andreas Frey2

  • 1Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt, Germany. a.fink@psych.uni-frankfurt.de.

Behavior Research Methods
|March 27, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) often overestimates ability due to item parameter errors. A Bayesian approach effectively addresses this uncertainty, improving ability estimates, especially when large calibration samples are not feasible.

Keywords:
Bayesian techniquesCalibration errorComputerized adaptive testingItem response theory

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Validation of SICOLE-R for Assessing Cognitive and Reading Skills in Spanish-Speaking Children and Its Role in Personalized Education
09:00

Author Spotlight: Validation of SICOLE-R for Assessing Cognitive and Reading Skills in Spanish-Speaking Children and Its Role in Personalized Education

Published on: August 16, 2024

653
A Tactile Automated Passive-Finger Stimulator TAPS
19:44

A Tactile Automated Passive-Finger Stimulator TAPS

Published on: June 3, 2009

13.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 23, 2025

Computerized Adaptive Testing System of Functional Assessment of Stroke
05:21

Computerized Adaptive Testing System of Functional Assessment of Stroke

Published on: January 7, 2019

5.7K
Author Spotlight: Validation of SICOLE-R for Assessing Cognitive and Reading Skills in Spanish-Speaking Children and Its Role in Personalized Education
09:00

Author Spotlight: Validation of SICOLE-R for Assessing Cognitive and Reading Skills in Spanish-Speaking Children and Its Role in Personalized Education

Published on: August 16, 2024

653
A Tactile Automated Passive-Finger Stimulator TAPS
19:44

A Tactile Automated Passive-Finger Stimulator TAPS

Published on: June 3, 2009

13.6K

Area of Science:

  • Psychometrics
  • Educational Measurement
  • Statistical Modeling

Background:

  • Item parameter estimates in Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) are typically treated as fixed, ignoring inherent calibration errors.
  • Uncertainty in item parameters can lead to underestimated standard errors and biased ability estimates, particularly at extreme ability levels.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate methods for accounting for item parameter uncertainty in CAT.
  • To compare the performance of measurement error modeling and Bayesian approaches against standard CAT procedures.

Main Methods:

  • A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted.
  • Three approaches were examined: two measurement error modeling techniques and one fully Bayesian method.
  • These methods were compared based on the accuracy and bias of ability estimates.

Main Results:

  • All three examined approaches reduced bias and mean squared error (MSE) in ability estimates, especially under high item calibration error conditions.
  • The Bayesian approach demonstrated superior performance compared to the measurement error modeling approaches.
  • The benefits were most pronounced for individuals with extreme ability levels.

Conclusions:

  • Accounting for item parameter uncertainty is crucial for accurate ability estimation in CAT.
  • The Bayesian approach is recommended for its effectiveness in mitigating bias and improving accuracy.
  • This method is particularly valuable in situations where large calibration samples are impractical.