1 4-1-6
FI FI1+2
= 15 FI1+2
.33 .31 .36
1/3 Yao 2012
2.15 CAT f&(S)
FI2 [0.9]
[0.9]
2.15
[0.9] [0.7]
2.15
FI [0.7]
2.15 [0.7]
[0.9]
1
= 15 80%
FI FI2
FI1 [0.7]
[0.8] [0.9]
FI
FI1 FI2 FI1+2
FI2
FI1 FI1+2 FI1+2
FI2 [0.9]
FI1 [0.7]
4-1-1 1
4-1-2 1
4-1-4 1
4-1-6 1
MTL
[ ]
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
15 A [0.9] .33 .00 .72 .00 .16 .00 .34 .00 .74 .00 .14 .00 .33 .00 .72 .00 .16 .00 B [0.8] .31 .00 .17 .00 .34 .00 .31 .00 .14 .00 .34 .00 .31 .00 .17 .00 .34 .00 C [0.7] .36 .00 .11 .00 .50 .00 .35 .00 .12 .00 .52 .00 .36 .00 .11 .00 .50 .00 30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .67 .00 .22 .00 .35 .00 .69 .00 .20 .00 .34 .00 .67 .00 .22 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .21 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .18 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .21 .00 .36 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .42 .00 .33 .00 .13 .00 .44 .00 .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .56 .00 .27 .00 .34 .00 .61 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .57 .00 .27 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .29 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .26 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .29 .00 .36 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .38 .00 .32 .00 .14 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .15 .00 .38 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 .34 .00 .58 .00 .26 .00 .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .27 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .16 .00 .37 .00 .32 .00 .15 .00 .39 .00 .33 .00 .16 .00 .37 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL =
1.
4-1-7 1
SHOF FI
1% 3 3%
MMM FI
SHOF MMM FI2
[0.9] FI1 [0.7]
[0.8]
FI2
[0.9] [0.9]
[0.8] [0.7]
[0.8] [0.7]
FI1
[0.8] [0.7] [0.8] [0.7]
[0.9] [0.9]
MMM FI
1/3 FI
FI1+2 MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM
FI1+2 SHOF MMM
SHOF MMM
1% 2%
4-1-8
SHOF FI
5% MMM FI
MMM FI
1/3 FI
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF
MMM 1%
MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM FI1+2
SHOF MMM SHOF
MMM 4
15 30 60 90 .98 1.00
2.
4-1-9 1
SHOF FI
= 90 4.41
MMM FI
FI1+2 MMM
SHOF MMM
0.21 MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM
FI1+2 SHOF MMM SHOF
MMM = 90 3.51
3.
4-1-10 1
SHOF
.2 MMM
.87 .90 MMM
4.
4-1-11 1
SHOF
= 90
27% MMM FI
FI1+2 MMM
SHOF MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM FI
FI1+2 SHOF MMM
SHOF MMM
= 90 21
5.
4-1-12 1
MMM
1/3 SHOF
FI2 [0.9]
FI1 [0.7]
FI2
[0.9]
[0.8] [0.7]
6.
1
SHOF MMM
SHOF
MMM FI
4-1-7 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-8 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-9 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-10 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-11 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-12 1
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
15 A [0.9] .33 .00 .72 .00 .16 .00 .34 .00 .62 .00 .15 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .31 .00 .17 .00 .34 .00 .32 .00 .23 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .36 .00 .11 .00 .50 .00 .34 .00 .14 .00 .49 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .67 .00 .22 .00 .33 .00 .52 .00 .21 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .21 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .42 .00 .34 .00 .16 .00 .43 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .56 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .46 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .29 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .38 .00 .34 .00 .20 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 .33 .00 .41 .00 .25 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .16 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .23 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
1.
SHOF MMM 3
15 30 60 90
.86 .95 2.
4-1-15 1
SHOF FI
= 90 3.71
MMM FI
FI1+2 MMM SHOF
MMM 0.31
MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM FI1+2
SHOF MMM SHOF MMM
= 90 2.97
3.
4-1-16 1
SHOF
.2 MMM
.80 .82
4.
4-1-13 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-14 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-15 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-16 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-17 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-18 1
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
15 A [0.9] .34 .00 .74 .00 .14 .00 .35 .00 .66 .00 .14 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .31 .00 .14 .00 .34 .00 .31 .00 .20 .00 .34 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .35 .00 .12 .00 .52 .00 .34 .00 .14 .00 .52 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 30 A [0.9] .35 .00 .69 .00 .20 .00 .34 .00 .56 .00 .19 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .18 .00 .36 .00 .32 .00 .29 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .13 .00 .44 .00 .33 .00 .15 .00 .46 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .34 .00 .61 .00 .24 .00 .34 .00 .50 .00 .23 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .26 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .32 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .32 .00 .14 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .18 .00 .42 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .34 .00 .58 .00 .26 .00 .33 .00 .48 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .27 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .44 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .32 .00 .15 .00 .39 .00 .33 .00 .20 .00 .41 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
1.
15 30 60 90
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM
FI FI1+2
SHOF MMM SHOF MMM
= 90 20
5.
4-1-24 1
MMM
1/3 SHOF
FI2 [0.9] FI1
[0.7] FI2
6.
1
SHOF MMM
SHOF
MMM FI
4-1-19 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-20 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-21 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-22 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-23 1
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-1-24 1
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
15 A [0.9] .33 .00 .72 .00 .16 .00 .34 .00 .63 .00 .15 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .31 .00 .17 .00 .34 .00 .32 .00 .23 .00 .35 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .36 .00 .11 .00 .50 .00 .35 .00 .14 .00 .49 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .67 .00 .22 .00 .33 .00 .51 .00 .21 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .21 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 .34 .00 .16 .00 .43 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .57 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .46 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .29 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .38 .00 .34 .00 .20 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 .33 .00 .41 .00 .25 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .16 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .23 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
2 4-2-1
70%
= 30 FI
.75 .76 3 .73
.85 120 .78 3
.85 .89 70%
= 30 FI
.74 .76 120
.78 3
70%
= 30 FI .73
.85 120 .85 .89
2
1%
2.25 3
FI 2 1
FI2 FI1
[0.7] [0.8]
[0.9]
2 4-2-2 1
= 30 FI
.67 .74 120 .37 .38
= 30
.94 .96 120 .88 .90
FI
FI1
FI
30 60 90 120 .98 1.00
.86 .93
.99 1.00
2 4-2-3 1
FI = 30
25.52 26.33 120 66.44 69.05
= 30
29.33 29.51 120 111.10
112.12 FI
FI1 FI
FI2 FI1
FI1+2
2 4-2-4 1
FI
1
2 4-2-5 1
= 30 FI .11 .13
120 .34 .39
= 30 .15 .16
120 .43 .47 FI
FI1 FI1+2 FI1 FI1+2 FI2
2 4-2-6 1
[0.9] FI1
[0.7]
2
= 30 70%
FI
FI2 FI1 [0.7]
[0.8]
[0.9]
FI
FI1
FI
FI2 FI1 FI1+2
FI1+2
FI2 [0.9]
FI1 [0.7]
4-2-1 2
4-2-2 2
4-2-4 2
4-2-6 2
MTL [ ]
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .65 .00 .23 .00 .34 .00 .68 .00 .23 .00 .34 .00 .65 .00 .23 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .22 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .20 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .22 .00 .36 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 .33 .00 .11 .00 .41 .00 .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .55 .00 .27 .00 .34 .00 .59 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .55 .00 .27 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .27 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .14 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .15 .00 .37 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .52 .00 .28 .00 .33 .00 .56 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .52 .00 .28 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .29 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .16 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 120 A [0.9] .33 .00 .50 .00 .28 .00 .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 .33 .00 .50 .00 .28 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .29 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .32 .00 .35 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .19 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .19 .00 .36 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL =
1.
4-2-7 2
SHOF FI
4% 3 8% MMM
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF
MMM 1%
MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM
FI1+2 SHOF MMM
SHOF MMM
2% 6%
4-2-8 SHOF
FI
2% MMM FI
FI1+2 MMM
SHOF MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM FI
MMM
SHOF MMM
= 120 36% MMM
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF MMM
1%
MMM SHOF MMM
FI
FI1+2 SHOF MMM SHOF
MMM = 120
33 5.
4-2-12 2
MMM
1/3 SHOF
FI2 [0.9]
FI1 [0.7] FI2
6.
2
SHOF MMM
SHOF
MMM FI
4-2-7 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-8 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-9 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-10 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-11 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-12 2
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .65 .00 .23 .00 .33 .00 .51 .00 .21 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .22 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 .34 .00 .17 .00 .43 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .55 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .44 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .37 .00 .34 .00 .21 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .52 .00 .28 .00 .32 .00 .39 .00 .26 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 .34 .00 .25 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 120 A [0.9] .33 .00 .50 .00 .28 .00 .32 .00 .36 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .19 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .29 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
1.
15 30 60 90
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM
FI FI1+2
SHOF MMM SHOF MMM
= 120 25
5.
4-2-18 2
MMM
1/3 SHOF
FI2 [0.9] FI1
[0.7] FI2
6.
2
SHOF MMM
SHOF
MMM FI
4-2-13 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-14 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-15 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-16 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-17 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-18 2
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .68 .00 .23 .00 .33 .00 .51 .00 .21 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .20 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .11 .00 .41 .00 .34 .00 .16 .00 .43 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .34 .00 .59 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .46 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .27 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .14 .00 .38 .00 .34 .00 .21 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .56 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .41 .00 .25 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .29 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .16 .00 .38 .00 .34 .00 .23 .00 .39 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 120 A [0.9] .33 .00 .54 .00 .28 .00 .32 .00 .39 .00 .26 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .29 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 .34 .00 .25 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
1.
15 30 60 90
FI FI1+2
MMM SHOF MMM
1% MMM
SHOF MMM
FI FI1+2
SHOF MMM SHOF MMM
= 120 33
5.
4-2-24 2
MMM
1/3 SHOF
FI2 [0.9] FI1
[0.7] FI2
6.
2
SHOF MMM
SHOF
MMM FI
4-2-19 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-20 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-21 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-22 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-23 2
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
4-2-24 2
MTL [ ]
SHOF MMM 11111 SHOF 11111 111111 MMM 11111 1 SHOF MMM 1
FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1 FI 1+2 FI 2 FI 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
30 A [0.9] .34 .00 .65 .00 .23 .00 .33 .00 .51 .00 .21 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .33 .00 .22 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .12 .00 .41 .00 .34 .00 .17 .00 .43 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 60 A [0.9] .33 .00 .55 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .44 .00 .24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .30 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .15 .00 .37 .00 .34 .00 .22 .00 .40 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 90 A [0.9] .33 .00 .52 .00 .28 .00 .32 .00 .39 .00 .26 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .31 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .17 .00 .37 .00 .34 .00 .25 .00 .38 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 120 A [0.9] .33 .00 .50 .00 .28 .00 .32 .00 .36 .00 .27 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 B [0.8] .34 .00 .32 .00 .35 .00 .34 .00 .36 .00 .36 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 C [0.7] .33 .00 .19 .00 .36 .00 .34 .00 .29 .00 .37 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00
FI 1+2 = FI 2 = FI 1 =
MTL = SHOF = the Sympson and Hetter online procedure with Freeze MMM = the modified multinomial model
Fisher Information
HIRT-CCT HIRT-CCT
Fisher Information FI2
FI1 [0.7]
[0.8]
[0.9]
FI
FI1
FI2
FI1+2 FI2
[0.9] FI1
[0.7]
FI
1 SHOF
.2
MMM
1/3 FI
30 FI1+2
HIRT-CCT 85%
30 FI1+2
HIRT-CCT 85%
60 FI1+2
HIRT-CCT 80%
75%
60 FI1+2
HIRT-CCT 75%
HIRT-CCT
- HIRT-CCT
MAP
MLE EAP
ability confidence interval, ACI estimated-based, EB ACI + EB
sequential probability ratio test, SPRT cut point-based, CB SPRT + CB
Spray Reckase 1984
SPRT CB Eggen 1999
SPRT EB SPRT CB SPRT + CB
1 3
HIRT
HIRT Likert
2008 55 1-32
2006
38(2) 195-211
Ackerman, T. A. (1991). The use of unidimensional parameter estimates of multidimensional items in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 113-127.
Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., & Wang, W.-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23.
Adams, R. J, Wilson, M., & Wu, M. (1997). Multilevel item response models: An approach to error in variables regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 47-76.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinees’
ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
Chang, S.-W., & Ansley, T. N. (2003). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 71-103.
Chen, S.-Y., Lei, P.-W., & Liao, W.-H. (2008). Controlling item exposure and test overlap on the fly in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 471-492.
Chen, S.-Y., & Liao, W.-H. (2005). Controlling Item Exposure and Test Overlap on the Fly in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Chen, S.-Y., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2004). Effects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 149-174.
Chen, S.-Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A. (2003). The relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 129-145.
Davey, T., & Parshall, C. G. (1995, April). New algorithms for item selection and exposure control with computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333-353.
de la Torre, J., & Hong, Y. (2010). Parameter estimation with small sample size a higher-order IRT model approach. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 267-285.
de la Torre, J., & Song, H. (2009). Simultaneously estimation of overall and domain abilities: A higher- order IRT model approach. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 620-639.
de la Torre, J., Song, H., & Hong, Y. (2011). A comparison of four methods of IRT subscoring. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 296-316.
Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.
Eggen, T. J. H. M, & Straetmans, G. J. J. M. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing for classifying examinees into three categories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 713-734.
Ferguson, R. L. (1969). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a computer-assisted branched test for a program of individually prescribed instruction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Fischer, G. H. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research.
Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.
Hattie, J. (1981). Decision criteria for determining unidimensional and multidimensional normal ogive models of latent trait theory. Armidale, Australia: The University of New England, Center for Behavioral Studies.
Huang, H.-Y., Chen, P.-H., & Wang, W.-C. (2012). Computerized adaptive testing using a class of high-order item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 689–706.
Huang, H.-Y., & Wang, W.-C. (2012). Higher-order testlet response models for hierarchical latent traits and testlet-based items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 491-511.
Huang, H.-Y., Wang, W.-C., & Chen, P.-H. (2010, April). An item response model with hierarchical latent traits. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Huang, H.-Y., Wang W.-C., Chen, P.-H., & Su, C.-M. (2013). Higher-order item response models for hierarchical latent traits. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 619–
637.
Ju, Y. (2005). Item exposure control in a-stratified computerized adaptive testing.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
Kelderman, H. (1996). Multidimensional Rasch models for partial-credit scoring. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 155-168.
Kingsbury, G.G., & Weiss, D.J. (1979). An adaptive testing strategy for mastery decisions.
Research report 79-05. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Psychometric Methods Laboratory.
Kingsbury, G.G., & Weiss, D.J. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237-254). New York: Academic Press.
Kingsbury, G.G., & Zara, A.R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 359-375.
Lewis, C., & Sheehan, K. M. (1990). Using Bayesian decision theory to design a computerized mastery test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 367-386.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47,
149-McBride, J.R., & Martin, J.T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D.J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing. New York: Academic Press.
McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1982). The use of the general Rasch model with multidimensional item response data (Research Report ONR82-1). Iowa City:
American College Testing Program.
McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1983). An application of a multidimensional extension of the twoparameter logistic latent trait model (ONR-83-3). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 168)
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
Copenhagen: Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.)
Reckase, M. D. (1983). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In D. J.
Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237- 254). New York: Academic Press.
Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A Comparison of Item Exposure Control Methods in Computerized Adaptive Testing. Journal of Educational Measuremen, 35, 311-327.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement (No. 17). Richmond, VA:
Psychometric Society.
Sand W. A., Water, B. K., & McBride, J. R. (Eds.) (1997). Computerized adaptive testing:
from inquiry to operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61, 331-354.
Sheng, Y., & Wikle, C. K. (2008). Bayesian multidimensional IRT models with a hierarchical structure. Educational and psychological measurement, 68, 413-430.
Smith, R. L., & Lewis, C. (1995). A Bayesian computerized mastery model with multiple cut scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
Spray, J. A. (1993). Multiple-category classification using a sequential probability ratio
Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D. (1994). The selection of test items for decision making with a computerized adaptive test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education (New Orleans, LA, April 5-7, 1994).
Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(3), 277-292.
Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Proceedings of the 27 th Annual Meeting of the Military Testing Association, (pp. 973-977). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Thompson, N. A. (2009). Item selection in computerized classification testing.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 778-793.
van der Linden, W.J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing.
Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Wang, X. (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., et al.
(Eds.) (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publish.
Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.
Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M. R. (2005a). The Rasch testlet model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 126-149.
Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M. R. (2005b). Exploring local item dependence using a random-effects facet model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 296-318.
Wang, W.-C., Chen, P.-H., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2004). Improving measurement precision of test batteries using multidimensional item response models. Psychological Method, 9, 116-136.
Wang, W.-C., Cheng, Y.-Y., & Wilson, M. R. (2005). Local item dependency for items across tests connected by common stimuli. Educational and Psychological measurement, 65, 5-27.
Weiss, D. J. (Ed.) (1985). Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing
Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 361-375.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ACER ConQuest: Generalised item response modeling software. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.