Empirical Option Weights Improve the Validity of a Multiple-Choice Knowledge Test

被引:4
作者
Diedenhofen, Birk [1 ]
Musch, Jochen [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Expt Psychol, Univ Str 1,Bldg 23-03, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
关键词
empirical option weighting; multiple-choice test; reliability; validity; partial knowledge; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; TEST RELIABILITY; APTITUDE;
D O I
10.1027/1015-5759/a000295
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Standard dichotomous scoring of multiple-choice test items grants no partial credit for partial knowledge. Empirical option weighting is an alternative, polychotomous scoring method that uses the point-biserial correlation between option choices and total score as a weight for each answer alternative. Extant studies demonstrate that the method increases reliability of multiple-choice tests in comparison to conventional scoring. Most previous studies employed a correlational validation approach, however, and provided mixed findings with regard to the validity of empirical option weighting. The present study is the first investigation using an experimental approach to determine the reliability and validity of empirical option weighting. To obtain an external validation criterion, we experimentally induced various degrees of knowledge in a domain of which participants had no knowledge. We found that in comparison to dichotomous scoring, empirical option weighting increased both reliability and validity of a multiple-choice knowledge test employing distractors that were appealing to test takers with different levels of knowledge. A potential application of the present results is the computation and publication of empirical option weights for existing multiple-choice knowledge tests that have previously been scored dichotomously.
引用
收藏
页码:336 / 344
页数:9
相关论文
共 44 条
[21]   Theoretical evaluation of partial credit scoring of the multiple-choice test item [J].
Rasmus A. X. Persson .
METRON, 2023, 81 :143-161
[22]   Different Methods of Multiple-Choice Test: Implications and Design for Further Research [J].
Ng, Annie W. Y. ;
Chan, Alan H. S. .
IMECS 2009: INTERNATIONAL MULTI-CONFERENCE OF ENGINEERS AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS, VOLS I AND II, 2009, :1958-1963
[23]   Open-answer or/and Multiple-choice Test? Comparison of research results [J].
Simonova, Ivana .
2013 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BASED HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING (ITHET 2013), 2013,
[24]   Automated Scoring of Multiple-Choice Test Using Template Matching Technique [J].
Tjahyadi, Hendra ;
Lukas, Samuel ;
Albert, Steven ;
Krisnadi, Dion .
ISCSIC'18: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT CONTROL, 2018,
[25]   The Three-option Format for Knowledge and Ability Multiple-choice Tests: A case for why it should be more commonly used in personnel testing [J].
Edwards, Bryan D. ;
Arthur, Winfred, Jr. ;
Bruce, Leonardis L. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, 2012, 20 (01) :65-81
[26]   COMPARISON OF FOUR- AND FIVE-OPTION MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS IN NURSING ENTRANCE TESTS [J].
Panczyk, M. ;
Rebandel, H. ;
Gotlib, J. .
ICERI2014: 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION, 2014, :4131-4138
[27]   Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test MWT in Schizophrenia: Valid Measure of Premorbid Intelligence? [J].
Wittorf, Andreas ;
Wiedemann, Georg ;
Klingberg, Stefan .
PSYCHIATRISCHE PRAXIS, 2014, 41 (02) :95-100
[28]   Impact of Answer-Switching Behavior on Multiple-Choice Test Scores in Higher Education [J].
Basturk, Ramazan .
JOURNAL OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY-EPOD, 2011, 2 (01) :114-120
[29]   LMS assessment: using IRT analysis to detect defective multiple-choice test items [J].
Fotaris, Panagiotis ;
Mastoras, Theodoros .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING, 2014, 6 (04) :281-296
[30]   Item statistics derived from three-option versions of multiple-choice questions are usually as robust as four- or five-option versions: implications for exam design [J].
Loudon, Catherine ;
Macias-Munoz, Aide .
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2018, 42 (04) :565-575