Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-szhh2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:50:27.753Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grading Distractor-Identification Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Joe Dan Austin
Joe Dan Austin*
Affiliation:
Rice University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Joe Dan Austin, Department of Education, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On distractor-identification tests students mark as many distractors as possible on each test item. A grading scale is developed for this type testing. The scale is optimal in that it is the unique scale giving an unbiased estimate of the student's “true score”, i.e., the score that would result if no guessing occurred. If the test is administered as a usual multiple choice test and graded using the usual correction for guessing scale, the expected item score is the same as for the distractor-identification testing using the optimal grading scale. However, the variance of the item score is shown to be less for distractor-identification testing than for usual multiple choice testing under certain conditions.

Keywords

correcting for guessingscoringpoint estimationpartial knowledge
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 129 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Collet, L. S. Elimination scoring: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971, 8, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H., Milholland, J. E. & Womer, F. B. The assessment of partial knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1956, 16, 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. Methods for discriminating levels of partial knowledge concerning a test item. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1965, 18, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. D., Olkin, I. & Sobel, M. A subset selection technique for scoring items on a multiple choice test. Psychometrika, 1979, 44, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakstian, A. R. & Kansup, W. A comparison of several methods of assessing partial knowledge in multiple-choice tests: II. Testing procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1975, 12, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, E. B. Overcorrection for guessing in multiple-choice test scoring. Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 55, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. Educational Measurement, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971.Google Scholar
Wood, R. Inhibiting blind guessing: The effect of instructions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1976, 13, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar