Objective To develop a psychometrically appropriate brief symptoms measure of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods Preoperative CTS 11-item symptom severity and 8-item functional status scales from 693 patients (71% women) with CTS were subjected to exploratory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis yielding a revised CTS symptoms scale. A validation sample of 213 patients (68% women) with CTS completed the 11-item disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (QuickDASH), and the revised symptoms scale and 116 patients also completed the original CTS symptom severity scale (median interval 11 days). Results Of the 11 CTS symptom severity scale items, 2 items that on factor analysis associated with the functional status items were removed. After IRT recalibrations of the remaining symptom severity scale items, 2 non-fitting items were removed and 2 items were merged creating the 6-item CTS symptoms scale. Factor analysis showed one dominant factor explaining 58% of the variance. Reliability was high (Cronbach alpha = 0.86; IRT person separation reliability = 0.88). No item displayed significant differential item functioning. The 6-item CTS symptoms scale showed strong correlation with the QuickDASH (r = 0.70) and agreement with the original symptom severity scale (ICC = 0.80). Conclusion The 6-item CTS symptoms scale has good reliability and validity and can be used to measure symptom severity and treatment outcome in CTS.

No abstract

umeå university, umeå, sweden; b department of Applied educational science, umeå university, umeå, sweden It is a desired feature of any testing program that test-takers' performance on the test is mainly affected by the content and difficulty of the test and the competencies of the test-takers. However, how test-takers behave, feel and respond to test situations might also contribute significantly to their performance. For example, to be successful when taking a test it is important to know and use appropriate test strategies, including adequate preparation (Bicak, 2013; Bond & Harman, 1994). Further, it is important to be motivated, and to be able to suppress test anxiety and other emotions which can interfere with test performance (Naylor, 1997; Sternberg, 1998). Test-taker behaviour, such as test-taking strategies, and emotional and motivational concerns related to test-taking, may introduce construct-irrelevant variance into the test scores (Haladyna & Downing, 2004). Thus, the test may measure more than the test developers intended (i.e. not only the proficiency of the test-taker, but also how he or she manages to cope with the test situation as such). As validity refers to 'the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests'

To be successful in a high-stakes testing situation is desirable for any test taker. It has been found that, beside content knowledge, test-taking behavior, such as risktaking strategies, motivation, and test anxiety, is important for test performance. The purposes of the present study were to identify and group test takers with similar patterns of test-taking behavior and to explore how these groups differ in terms of background characteristics and test performance in a high-stakes achievement test context. A sample of the Swedish Scholastic Assessment Test test takers (N = 1891) completed a questionnaire measuring their motivation, test anxiety, and risk-taking behavior during the test, as well as background characteristics. A two-step cluster analysis revealed three clusters of test takers with significantly different test-taking behavior profiles: a moderate (n = 741), a calm risk taker (n = 637), and a test anxious risk averse (n = 513) profile. Group difference analyses showed that the calm risk taker profile (i.e., a high degree of risktaking together with relatively low levels of test anxiety and motivation during the test) was the most successful profile from a test performance perspective, while the test anxious risk averse profile (i.e., a low degree of risk-taking together with high levels of test anxiety and motivation) was the least successful. Informing prospective test takers about these insights can potentially lead to more valid interpretations and inferences based on the test scores. Eur J Psychol Educ (2018) shown that for a test taker to be successful when taking a test, it is important to be able to reduce anxiety and sustain motivation (Dodeen et al. 2014;Naylor 1997;Sternberg 1998), as well as using effective test-taking strategies, such as willingness to take risks (Bicak 2013;Bond and Harman 1994;Dodeen 2008). Studies in this area often compare groups of test takers and have for example found that high achievers tend to report using more effective testtaking strategies when compared to low achievers (Stenlund et al. 2017;Ellis and Ryan 2003;Hong et al. 2006;Kim and Goetz 1993), that males are more prone to taking risks when answering test items (see, e.g., Baldiga 2014), and that females and low achievers seem to experience higher levels of test anxiety than males and high achievers (Stenlund et al. 2017;Cassady and Johnson 2002;Naylor 1997). Findings like these can help understand and to some extent possibly explain performance differences that are often observed between manifest groups in achievement tests. Still, considering the consequences of successful test-taking behavior in high-stakes test situations, and assuming that test takers adopt different test-taking behavior, exploring differences across groups, in terms of profiles, and identifying patterns that seem associated with sucessful and less successful test-taking, respectively, might add important knowledge to this area. With this study, we therefore aim at identifying subgroups of test takers with similar patter...

The equal ability distribution assumption associated with the equivalent groups equating design was investigated in the context of a selection test for admission to higher education. The purpose was to assess the consequences for the test-takers in terms of receiving improperly high or low scores compared to their peers, and to find strong empirical evidence of potential violations of the assumption. Testtakers' scores on anchor items from two subtests were estimated using information about test-taker performance on the regular subtests. The results indicated that the anchor test item performance varied sufficiently, both in terms of means and spreads. Therefore, the equal ability distribution assumption could be questioned. Also, the estimated differences between different cohorts of test-takers are large enough to have an impact on the actual admissions decisions. Consequently, our conclusion is that more caution is needed when applying the equivalent groups design in the equating of tests. Assuming equal ability groups is a convenient assumption to make but it can also lead to systematic bias in the equating of test scores with potentially severe implications for test-takers, and this study provides a demonstration of this point.