The Three‐Option Format for Knowledge and Ability Multiple‐Choice Tests: A Case for Why it Should Be More Commonly Used in Personnel Testing

Bryan D. Edwards, Winfred Arthur Jr, Leonardis L. Bruce
{"title":"The Three‐Option Format for Knowledge and Ability Multiple‐Choice Tests: A Case for Why it Should Be More Commonly Used in Personnel Testing","authors":"Bryan D. Edwards, Winfred Arthur Jr, Leonardis L. Bruce","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00580.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multiple‐choice (MC) tests are arguably the most widely used testing format in applied settings. In the psychometric and education literatures, research on the optimal number of options for knowledge and ability MC tests has revealed that three‐option tests are psychometrically equivalent and, in some cases, superior to five‐option tests. In addition, there are a number of practical, economic, and administrative advantages associated with the use of three‐option MC tests. Yet, despite its advantages, the three‐option format is underutilized in personnel selection. Across two studies, we compared test‐taker perceptions, criterion‐related validity, and sex‐based subgroup differences, and in Study 1, we compared race‐based subgroup differences on three‐ and five‐option tests. Participants in the two studies completed a three‐ or five‐option version of ACT. Test perceptions, criterion‐related validity, and race‐ and sex‐based subgroup differences were similar across test formats. The implications for the expanded use of three‐option tests in applied settings and future directions for research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":319092,"journal":{"name":"ORG: Employee Selection Process (Topic)","volume":"191 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORG: Employee Selection Process (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00580.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Multiple‐choice (MC) tests are arguably the most widely used testing format in applied settings. In the psychometric and education literatures, research on the optimal number of options for knowledge and ability MC tests has revealed that three‐option tests are psychometrically equivalent and, in some cases, superior to five‐option tests. In addition, there are a number of practical, economic, and administrative advantages associated with the use of three‐option MC tests. Yet, despite its advantages, the three‐option format is underutilized in personnel selection. Across two studies, we compared test‐taker perceptions, criterion‐related validity, and sex‐based subgroup differences, and in Study 1, we compared race‐based subgroup differences on three‐ and five‐option tests. Participants in the two studies completed a three‐ or five‐option version of ACT. Test perceptions, criterion‐related validity, and race‐ and sex‐based subgroup differences were similar across test formats. The implications for the expanded use of three‐option tests in applied settings and future directions for research are discussed.
知识和能力多项选择测试的三选项格式:为什么它应该更普遍地用于人员测试的案例
多项选择(MC)测试可以说是应用环境中最广泛使用的测试形式。在心理测量学和教育文献中,关于知识和能力MC测试的最佳选项数的研究表明,三选项测试在心理测量学上是等效的,在某些情况下,优于五选项测试。此外,使用三选项MC测试具有许多实用、经济和管理方面的优势。然而,尽管有其优势,三选项格式在人员选择中未得到充分利用。在两项研究中,我们比较了受试者感知、标准相关效度和基于性别的亚组差异,在研究1中,我们比较了基于种族的亚组在三选项和五选项测试中的差异。这两项研究的参与者完成了三个或五个选项版本的ACT。测试感知、标准相关效度、基于种族和性别的亚组差异在不同的测试格式中是相似的。讨论了在应用环境中扩大使用三选项测试的影响和未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信