CAT model with personalized algorithm for evaluation of estimated student knowledge


This article presents the original model of the computer adaptive testing and grade formation, based on scientifically recognized theories. The base of the model is a personalized algorithm for selection of questions depending on the accuracy of the answer to the previous question. The test is divided into three basic levels of difficulty, and the student automatically goes from one level to another according to the current level of the knowledge that he shows. Such examination creates an image to the student that the test was set up just for his level of knowledge. On the basis of responses, by applying Bayes’ theorem and the Maximum a posteriori approach, the evaluation grade is formed. In fact, based on empirical probability values, which correlate with obtaining of a certain final grade and the accuracy of answers to each question individually, model creates a score that corresponds to the current level of student’s knowledge. After each test answer, the empirical probability value is updated. That further contributes to the statistical stability of the evaluation model. Testing stops when the student answers the minimum number of questions, determined by a teacher, or, when evaluations show a clear convergence towards a single value. The research method and some results of the testing of the hypotheses as well as authors’ conclusions about CAT as a tool for evaluation of students are presented at the end of the article.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7


  1. 1.

    One logit is equivalent to the difficulty coefficient of 0.73, or 73 % probability of the correct answers


  1. Andjelic, S. (2010). A supplement to objective evaluation of student work using computer adaptive testing, PhD thesis, Defended 10/08/2010, Faculty of Industrial Managment, Union University, Belgrade, Serba.

  2. Bugbee, A. C., & Bernt, F. M. (1990). Testing by computer: findings in six years of use 1982–1988. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 87–100. Publisher: International Association for Computing in Education Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dawson, B., & Trapp, R. G. (2004). Basic & clinical biostatistics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0-0714-1017-1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Desmarias, M. C., & Pu, X. (2008). A Bayesian student model without hidden nodes and its comparison with item response theory. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1). Publisher: IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Accessed 21 March 2012.

  5. EU. (2009). ECTS Users’ Guide: Annex 3 ECTS Grading Table. European Commission, 42. Publisher: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Accessed 13 June 2012.

  6. Guzmán, E., & Conejo, R. (2004). A model for student knowledge diagnosis through adaptive testing. Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3220/2004, 12–21. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30139-4_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guzmán, E., Conejo, R., & Pérez-de-la-Cruz, J.-L. (2007). Adaptive testing for hierarchical student models. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 17(1–2), 119–157. doi:10.1007/s11257-006-9018-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Linacre, J. M. (2000). Computer-adaptive testing: A methodology whose time has come. MESA Memorandum No. 69. Seoul: Komesa Press. Accessed 21 March 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Meijer, R. R., & van Krimpen-Stoop, E. M. (2010). Detecting person misfit in adaptive testing. Elements of Adaptive Testing Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences, Part 4, 315–329. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8_16.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mulder, J., & van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing with optimal design criteria for item selection. Psychometrika, 74(2), 273–296. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9097-5.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Parshall, C. G., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. J. (2002). Innovative item types for computerized testing. Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice, Part 3, 129–148. doi:10.1007/0-306-47531-6_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pavlek, S. Bajesovo učenje (Bayes’ learning). (2005). The Institute of Electronics, Microelectronics, Computer and Intelligent Systems, Zagreb, Croatia. . Accessed 16 September 2011.

  13. Roobaert, D., Karakoulas, G., & Chawla, N. V. (2006). Information gain, correlation and support vector machines. Feature extraction. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 207/2006, 463–470. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35488-8_23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Segall, D. O. (2002). Principles of multidimensional adaptive testing. Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice, Part 1, 53–73. doi:10.1007/0-306-47531-6_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sympson, B.J., & Hetter, R. D. (1985). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Military Testing Association, San Diego, USA, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

  16. Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 101–134). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3511-3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. van der Linden, W. J. (2010). Constrained adaptive testing with shadow tests. Elements of Adaptive Tesing, Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences, Part 1, 31–55. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8_2.

    Google Scholar 

  18. van der Linden, W. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2004). Constraining item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with shadow tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 273–291. doi:10.3102/10769986029003273. Publisher: SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wainer, H., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Item response theory. Calibration and estimation. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 61–99). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3511-3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Walter, O., Becker, J., Bjorner, J., Fliege, H., Klapp, B., & Rose, M. (2007). Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test for ‘Anxiety’ (Anxiety-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 16(Supplement 1), 143–155. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9191-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Luecht, R. M. (2010). Multistage testing: issues, designs, and research. Elements of Adaptive Testing Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences, Part 5, 355–372. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8_18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoran Cekerevac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andjelic, S., Cekerevac, Z. CAT model with personalized algorithm for evaluation of estimated student knowledge. Educ Inf Technol 19, 173–191 (2014).

Download citation

Key words

  • Estimation of knowledge
  • CAT
  • Criteria function
  • Bayes’ theorem
  • MAP approach