Premium
BEHAVIOR ON OBJECTIVE TESTS UNDER THEORETICALLY ADEQUATE, INADEQUATE AND UNSPECIFIED SCORING RULES
Author(s) -
JACOBS STANLEY S.
Publication year - 1975
Publication title -
journal of educational measurement
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.917
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1745-3984
pISSN - 0022-0655
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1975.tb01005.x
Subject(s) - gratitude , underwriting , citation , library science , psychology , management , sociology , computer science , social psychology , actuarial science , business , economics
Investigated were The effects of two levels of penalty for incorrect responses on two dependent variables (a measure of risk-taking or confidence, based on nonsense items, and the number of response-attempts to legitImoteltems) for three treatment groups In a 2 x 3, multi-response repeated measures, multivariate ANOVA design. Ss responded under one of three scoring-administrative rules: canyon?lanai Coombs-type directions and two variants suggested as mathematically more adequate. Results indicated significant differences both among groups and across conditions. The results went discussed with reference to The question of test vailditi in general, and tho problems posed for criterion-referenced measurement. A number of alternative administrative and scoring procedures for objective tests have been suggested (e.g. Coombs, 1953; de Finetti, 1965; Ebel, 1965; Rippey, 1968) which have as their coesnon objective a more adequate assessment of the degree of partial knowledge held by a given student with reference to a given item.1 A procedure known as 'option-elimination' or 'Coombs-type directions' (CTO) seems quite applicable to the typical classroom testing situation. With CTD, the student is required to Identify as many of the J-1 distractors among the J Item options as he or she is able. With the usual scoring rule, a student earns one point for each distractor so Identified. A penalty of -(j -1) points is suffered if the correct answer is identified as a distrector. Item scores, then, can range from -(J-1) points to (j.1) points, having 2(J-1)1 1See Echternacht (1972) for a comprehensive description end review of a number of alternative testing procedures.