Test Takers’ Response Tendencies in Alternative Item Formats: A Cognitive Science Approach

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2020.1804350

J. Moon, M. Keehner, Irvin R. Katz

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT We investigated how item formats influence test takers’ response tendencies under uncertainty. Adult participants solved content-equivalent math items in three formats: multiple-selection multiple-choice, grid with forced-choice (true-false) options, and grid with non-forced-choice options. Participants showed a greater tendency to commit (rather than omit) responses in the grid items, in both forced-choice and non-forced-choice types, compared to the multiple-selection multiple-choice items. These findings relate to the theoretical framework of affordances, which predicts that the design of interactive artifacts can shape one’s perception of action opportunities. The results of a signal detection analysis provided additional evidence that the item formats affected participants’ response bias. The current research suggests that cognitive science principles could provide an in-depth understanding of test takers’ cognition in new item formats.

查看原文本刊更多论文

另类题目形式下考生的反应倾向:一种认知科学方法

摘要：我们研究了在不确定性条件下，项目格式如何影响考生的反应倾向。成年参与者以三种形式解决了内容等效的数学项目：多选多项选择题、带强迫选择（真-假）选项的网格和带非强迫选择选项的网格。与多项选择多项相比，参与者在强迫选择和非强迫选择类型的网格项目中表现出更倾向于提交（而不是省略）回答。这些发现与可供性的理论框架有关，该框架预测交互工件的设计可以塑造一个人对行动机会的感知。信号检测分析的结果提供了额外的证据，证明项目格式影响了参与者的反应偏差。目前的研究表明，认知科学原理可以深入了解考生对新项目格式的认知。

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

Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.