scholarly journals Revision of Guilford Formula to Correct Item Difficulty for Guessing in Multiple Choice Test Items

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 249
Author(s):  
Ahmad S. Audeh
Keyword(s):  
Risk Taking ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Measurement Theory ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Correction Factors ◽  
Partial Knowledge ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Multiple Choice Item ◽  
New Formula

The original Guilford formula for estimation of multiple choice item difficulty was based on a penalty for guessing. This penalty was originally based on completely random or blind guessing, which means that it is purely based on mathematical estimation and on significantly violated assumptions. While authentic and fair estimation is expected to be based on mixed scoring formula which adds another correction factor to integrate measurement theory with decision theory based on partial knowledge and risk- taking behavior. A new formula with two correction factors related to guessing, partial knowledge and risk-taking is presented in this paper. Further studies are suggested for reviewing the validation of the main assumptions of item theory models. 

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Two-Option Versus the Four-Option Multiple-Choice Item: A Case for Fewer Distractors

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Bateson ◽  
William Dardick
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Government Agency ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Testing Time ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
P Values ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Content Domain ◽  
Multiple Choice Item ◽  
Alternate Choice

Multiple choice test items typically consist of the key and 3-4 distractors. However, research has supported the efficacy of using fewer alternatives. Haladyna and Downing (1993) found that it is difficult to write test items with more than one plausible distractor, resulting in items with a correct answer and one alternative, also known as the alternate choice (AC) format. We constructed two 32-item tests; one with four alternatives (MC4) and one with two (AC), using an inter-judge agreement approach to eliminate distractors. Tests were administered to 138 personnel working for a U.S. Government agency. Testing time was significantly less and scores were higher for the AC test. However, score differences disappeared when both forms were corrected for guessing. There were no significant differences in test difficulty (mean p-values). The corrected KR-20 reliabilities for both forms, after applying the Spearman-Brown formula, were AC = .816 and MC4 = .893. We discuss the results with respect to the resources spent writing and reviewing test items, and in more broadly sampling a content domain using the AC format due to reduced testing times.

Assessing the Quality of Multiple-Choice Test Items

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra L. Clifton ◽  
Cheryl L. Schriner
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Test Items

A Note on Decisionmaking Processes for Multiple-Choice Test Items

1988 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rand R. Wilcox ◽  
Karen Thompson Wilcox ◽  
Jacob Chung
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Test Items

Word Association: Variables Affecting Popular-Response Frequency

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 423-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D. Wynne ◽  
Herbert Gerjuoy ◽  
Harold Schiffman ◽  
Norman Wexler
Keyword(s):  
Word Association ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Free Association ◽  
Association Test ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Repeated Testing ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Word Association Test ◽  
Test Conditions

Normal Ss were given 54 Kent-Rosanoff word-association-test items in one of two different orders; antonym-eliciting items were concentrated either (a) near the beginning or (b) near the end of the list. For each order, testing was administered under three different test conditions: (a) standard free-association instructions, (b) instructions to give the response “most people” would give, and (c) “most people” instructions with a multiple-choice test format. The order starting with antonym-eliciting items elicited more popular antonym responses than did the other order. Popularity-set instructions, particularly with the multiple-choice format, elicited more non-antonym popular responses than did free-association test conditions. With repeated testing, popular antonyms became more frequent. For some sequences of test conditions, there was also an increase in non-antonym popular responses with repeated testing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document