Test-Taking Speed: Predictors and Implications

Lovett, Benjamin J.; Lewandowski, Lawrence J.; Potts, Heather

doi:10.1177/0734282916639462

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While we did not find group differences on reading performance measures, we did find participants with disabilities reported significantly more concerns about their reading and test-taking abilities than peers. Similar findings have been reported in other studies (Lewandowski, Berger, Lovett, & Gordon, 2016; Lovett, Lewandowski, & Potts, 2017), suggesting that college students tend to perceive more reading or learning problems than they demonstrate on standardized tests. Despite this apparent disconnect, we found that perception of reading and test taking did significantly predict amount of time used on the comprehension test.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Predicting the Extended Time Use of College Students With Disabilities

Spenceley

Wood

Valentino

et al. 2019

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the extent to which standardized reading performance, individual perceptions of reading and test taking skills, and test anxiety predict the amount of extended time needed to equalize test access for college students with disabilities. Thirty-seven college students with a specific learning disorder (LD) and/or an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis who received university test accommodations were recruited to participate in this study, along with 37 controls. All participants individually completed standardized reading tests and rating scales, and a timed reading comprehension task in a group setting. Results indicated that participants receiving test accommodations utilized approximately 14% more time than control participants to complete the timed reading task. Regression analyses indicated that the differences in time required to complete the reading comprehension task were related to participants’ reading fluency and decoding, as well as perceptions of the strength of their reading and test taking skills.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Predicting the Extended Time Use of College Students With Disabilities

Spenceley

Wood

Valentino

et al. 2019

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other findings are relatively less surprising and align well with the literature. In particular, there is evidence that speed on a reading comprehension test is not related to reading comprehension performance (Lovett et al, 2017) which reflects the results that VRRC items are weakly discriminating on test-speed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Differences in Discrimination with Respect to Latent Trait and Test-Taking Speed Across Items Measuring Sub-Domains of Cognitive Ability

Vista

Alahmadi

2022

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between latent trait and test-taking speed is an important area of study in assessment research. In addition to contributions of such studies to psychometrics, the factors that affect both ability and speed have implications for test development and have policy consequences especially if the tests are high stakes. This study investigated the main assessment scale used in gifted education screening in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and focused on the discriminating properties of items across the several cognitive subskills being measured. Under an item response theoretic framework, this study used a lognormal response time model to investigate the discrimination parameter estimates for both ability and speed, with guessing taken into account. Results showed that cognitive subskills do not have uniform discrimination properties across ability and speed, such that some types of items are better at discriminating ability while other types are better at discriminating speed. At a test-level, our results also showed that ability is negatively correlated with speed, such that higher ability students tend to take more time and hence have slower speed. This finding supports other results in the literature. Implications for high-stakes testing and test development are discussed.

show abstract

“…Into the twenty-first century, the prediction continues to fail not only in psychology courses (Brothen, 2012;Hammonds & Mariano, 2015) but also in chemistry (Ghaffari, 2015;Nevo & Spector, 1979); engineering (Armitage, 1999); agriculture (McDannell & Lyvers Peffer, 2013); business, including finance, real estate, and management (Beaulieu, & Frost, 1994;Lee, 2012;Schnusenberg & Slater, 2011); English and literature (Lovett, Lewandowski, & Potts, 2017;Rogers, 1968); statistics (Hammonds & Mariano, 2015;Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 1996); and mathematics (Rogers, 1968). Why does the prediction fail?…”

Section: Time-limited Tests Are Less Validmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four empirically based reasons not to administer time-limited tests.

Gernsbacher

Soicher

Becker‐Blease

2020

Translational Issues in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than a century, measurement experts have distinguished between time-limited tests and untimed power tests, which are administered without time limits or with time limits so generous all students are assured of completing all items. On untimed power tests, students can differ in their propensity to correctly respond to every item, and items should differ in how many correct responses they elicit. However, differences among students' speed of responding do not confound untimed power tests; therefore, untimed power tests ensure more accurate assessment. In this article, we present four empirically-based reasons to administer untimed power tests rather than time-limited tests in educational settings. (1) Time-limited tests are less valid; students' test-taking pace is not a valid reflection of their knowledge and mastery. (2) Time-limited tests are less reliable; estimates of time-limited tests' reliability are artificially inflated due to artefactual consistency in students' rate of work rather than authentic consistency in students' level of knowledge. (3) Time-limited tests are less inclusive; time-limited tests exclude students with documented disabilities who, because they are legally allowed additional test-taking time, are often literally excluded from test-taking classrooms. (4) Time-limited tests are less equitable; in addition to excluding students with documented disabilities, time-limited tests can also impede students who are learning English, students from under-represented backgrounds, students who are older than average, and students with disabilities who encounter barriers (e.g., stigma and financial expense) in obtaining disability documentation and legally-mandated accommodations. We conclude by offering recommendations for avoiding time-limited testing in higher educational assessment.

show abstract

Test-Taking Speed: Predictors and Implications

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Predicting the Extended Time Use of College Students With Disabilities

Predicting the Extended Time Use of College Students With Disabilities

Differences in Discrimination with Respect to Latent Trait and Test-Taking Speed Across Items Measuring Sub-Domains of Cognitive Ability

Four empirically based reasons not to administer time-limited tests.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About