解决传统选择题的缺点:不扣分的子集选择

Q2 Social Sciences
Lucia Otoyo, M. Bush
{"title":"解决传统选择题的缺点:不扣分的子集选择","authors":"Lucia Otoyo, M. Bush","doi":"10.7275/HQ8A-F262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of an empirical study of “subset selection” tests, which are a generalisation of traditional multiple-choice tests in which test takers are able to express partial knowledge. Similar previous studies have mostly been supportive of subset selection, but the deduction of marks for incorrect responses has been a cause for concern. For the present study, a novel marking scheme based on Akeroyd’s “dual response system” was used instead. In Akeroyd’s system, which assumes that every question has four answer options, test takers are able to split their single 100% bet on one answer option into two 50% bets by selecting two options, or into four 25% bets by selecting no options. To achieve full subset selection, this idea was extended so that test takers could also split their 100% bet equally between three options. \n \nThe results indicate increased test reliability (in the sense of measurement consistency), and also increased satisfaction on the part of the test takers. Furthermore, since the novel marking scheme does not in principle lead to either inflated or deflated marks, this makes it easy for educators who currently use traditional multiple-choice tests to switch to using subset selection tests.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing the shortcomings of traditional multiple-choice tests: subset selection without mark deductions\",\"authors\":\"Lucia Otoyo, M. Bush\",\"doi\":\"10.7275/HQ8A-F262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents the results of an empirical study of “subset selection” tests, which are a generalisation of traditional multiple-choice tests in which test takers are able to express partial knowledge. Similar previous studies have mostly been supportive of subset selection, but the deduction of marks for incorrect responses has been a cause for concern. For the present study, a novel marking scheme based on Akeroyd’s “dual response system” was used instead. In Akeroyd’s system, which assumes that every question has four answer options, test takers are able to split their single 100% bet on one answer option into two 50% bets by selecting two options, or into four 25% bets by selecting no options. To achieve full subset selection, this idea was extended so that test takers could also split their 100% bet equally between three options. \\n \\nThe results indicate increased test reliability (in the sense of measurement consistency), and also increased satisfaction on the part of the test takers. Furthermore, since the novel marking scheme does not in principle lead to either inflated or deflated marks, this makes it easy for educators who currently use traditional multiple-choice tests to switch to using subset selection tests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7275/HQ8A-F262\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/HQ8A-F262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文介绍了“子集选择”测试的实证研究结果,这是传统选择题测试的推广,在选择题测试中,考生能够表达部分知识。先前的类似研究大多支持子集选择,但对错误回答的扣分一直令人担忧。在本研究中,采用了一种基于阿克罗伊德的“双重反应系统”的新评分方案。在阿克罗伊德的系统中,假设每个问题都有四个答案选项,考生可以通过选择两个选项将他们对一个答案的100%赌注分成两个50%的赌注,或者通过不选择选项分成四个25%的赌注。为了实现完整的子集选择,这个想法得到了扩展,以便考生也可以在三个选项之间平均分配100%的赌注。结果表明,提高了测试的可靠性(在测量一致性的意义上),也提高了部分考生的满意度。此外,由于新的评分方案原则上不会导致分数膨胀或缩小,这使得目前使用传统选择题测试的教育工作者很容易转向使用子集选择测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing the shortcomings of traditional multiple-choice tests: subset selection without mark deductions
This article presents the results of an empirical study of “subset selection” tests, which are a generalisation of traditional multiple-choice tests in which test takers are able to express partial knowledge. Similar previous studies have mostly been supportive of subset selection, but the deduction of marks for incorrect responses has been a cause for concern. For the present study, a novel marking scheme based on Akeroyd’s “dual response system” was used instead. In Akeroyd’s system, which assumes that every question has four answer options, test takers are able to split their single 100% bet on one answer option into two 50% bets by selecting two options, or into four 25% bets by selecting no options. To achieve full subset selection, this idea was extended so that test takers could also split their 100% bet equally between three options. The results indicate increased test reliability (in the sense of measurement consistency), and also increased satisfaction on the part of the test takers. Furthermore, since the novel marking scheme does not in principle lead to either inflated or deflated marks, this makes it easy for educators who currently use traditional multiple-choice tests to switch to using subset selection tests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
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