The effect of instructions on multiple-choice test scores

被引:12
|
作者
Prieto, G [1 ]
Delgado, AR [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain
关键词
multiple-choice testing method; guessing; scoring testing; reliability;
D O I
10.1027//1015-5759.15.2.143
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Most standardized tests instruct subjects to guess under scoring procedures that do not correct for guessing or correct only for expected random guessing. Other scoring rules, such as offering a small reward for omissions or punishing errors by discounting more than expected from random guessing, have been proposed. This study was designed to test the effects of these four instruction/scoring conditions on performance indicators and on score reliability of multiple-choice tests. Some 240 participants were randomly assigned to four conditions differing in how much they discourage guessing. Subjects performed two psychometric computerized tests, which differed only in the instructions provided and the associated scoring procedure. For both tests, our hypotheses predicted (0) an increasing trend in omissions (showing that instructions were effective); (1) decreasing trends in wrong and right responses; (2) an increase in reliability estimates of both number right and scores. Predictions regarding performance indicators were mostly fulfilled, but expected differences in reliability failed to appear. The discussion of results takes into account not only psychometric issues related to guessing, but also the misleading educational implications of recommendations to guess in testing contexts.
引用
收藏
页码:143 / 150
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Investigating the Effect of Testlets Consisting of Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Items on Reliability via Generalizability Theory
    Kocaoglu, Serpil
    Sahin, Melek Gulsah
    JOURNAL OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY-EPOD, 2024, 15 (01): : 65 - 78
  • [22] Comparison of oral examination and electronic examination using paired multiple-choice questions
    Ventouras, Errikos
    Triantis, Dimos
    Tsiakas, Panagiotis
    Stergiopoulos, Charalampos
    COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2011, 56 (03) : 616 - 624
  • [23] Further evidence favoring three-option items in multiple-choice tests
    Delgado, AR
    Prieto, G
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 1998, 14 (03) : 197 - 201
  • [24] Validity and Reproducibility of a Semiquantitative Multiple-Choice Food Frequency Questionnaire in Iranian Adults
    Zimorovat, Alireza
    Moghtaderi, Fatemeh
    Amiri, Mojgan
    Raeisi-Dehkordi, Hamidreza
    Mohyadini, Matin
    Mohammadi, Mohammad
    Zarei, Sadegh
    Karimi-Nazari, Elham
    Mirzaei, Masoud
    Nadjarzadeh, Azadeh
    Salehi-Abargouei, Amin
    FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN, 2022, 43 (02) : 171 - 188
  • [25] Certification of Airport Security Officers Using Multiple-Choice Tests: A Pilot Study
    Hardmeier, Diana
    Mueller, Catharina
    Schwaninger, Adrian
    2014 INTERNATIONAL CARNAHAN CONFERENCE ON SECURITY TECHNOLOGY (ICCST), 2014,
  • [26] Nominal Response Model Is Useful for Scoring Multiple-Choice Situational Judgment Tests
    Zu, Jiyun
    Kyllonen, Patrick C.
    ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2020, 23 (02) : 342 - 366
  • [27] Evaluation of the Item Analysis of Multiple-Choice Pediatric Exams: A College of Medicine Departmental Review
    Mustafa, Alam Eldin M.
    BAHRAIN MEDICAL BULLETIN, 2024, 46 (03) : 2363 - 2369
  • [28] Feasibility of a Multiple-Choice Mini Mental State Examination for Chronically Critically Ill Patients
    Miguelez, Marta
    Merlani, Paolo
    Gigon, Fabienne
    Verdon, Melanie
    Annoni, Jean-Marie
    Ricou, Bara
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (08) : 1874 - 1881
  • [29] Cognitive diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items for word problems involving 'Time'
    Huan, Chin
    Meng, Chew Cheng
    CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 42 (20) : 17042 - 17061
  • [30] The Optimal Number of Choices in Multiple-Choice Tests: Some Evidence for Science and Technology Education
    Yaman, Suleyman
    NEW EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 2011, 23 (01): : 227 - 241