scholarly journals A study of the behavior of the pig Sus Scrofa by the multiple choice method.

1915 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Yerkes ◽  
Charles A. Coburn
Keyword(s):  
Sus Scrofa ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Method

Comparison of Paragraph Comprehension Test Scores with Reading versus Listening-Reading and Multiple-Choice versus Nominal Recall Administration Techniques: Justification for the Bypass Approach

1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1131-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren A. Weinberg ◽  
Anne McLean ◽  
Robert L. Snider ◽  
Jeanne W. Rintelmann ◽  
Roger A. Brumback
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Correct Answer ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Test Form ◽  
Recall Method ◽  
Input Method ◽  
Choice Testing ◽  
Choice Method

Eight groups of learning disabled children ( N = 100), categorized by the clinical Lexical Paradigm as good readers or poor readers, were individually administered the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Form D, by one of four input/retrieval methods: (1) the standardized method of administration in which the child reads each paragraph aloud and then answers five questions relating to the paragraph [read/recall method]; (2) the child reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question selects the correct answer from among three choices read by the examiner [read/choice method]; (3) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and reads each of the five questions to the child to answer [listen/recall method]; and (4) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question reads three multiple-choice answers from which the child selects the correct answer [listen/choice method]. The major difference in scores was between the groups tested by the recall versus the orally read multiple-choice methods. This study indicated that poor readers who listened to the material and were tested by orally read multiple-choice format could perform as well as good readers. The performance of good readers was not affected by listening or by the method of testing. The multiple-choice testing improved the performance of poor readers independent of the input method. This supports the arguments made previously that a “bypass approach” to education of poor readers in which testing is accomplished using an orally read multiple-choice format can enhance the child's school performance on reading-related tasks. Using a listening while reading input method may further enhance performance.

Yerkes' Multiple Choice Method with Human Adults.

1923 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brown ◽  
F. Whittell
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Choice Method

Comparison of Paragraph Comprehension Test Scores with Reading versus Listening-Reading and Multiple-Choice versus Nominal Recall Administration Techniques: Justification for the Bypass Approach

1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (3-2) ◽  
pp. 1131-1135
Author(s):  
Warren A. Weinberg ◽  
Anne McLean ◽  
Robert L. Snider ◽  
Jeanne W. Rintelmann ◽  
Roger A. Brumback
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Correct Answer ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Test Form ◽  
Recall Method ◽  
Input Method ◽  
Choice Testing ◽  
Choice Method

Eight groups of learning disabled children ( N = 100), categorized by the clinical Lexical Paradigm as good readers or poor readers, were individually administered the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Form D, by one of four input/retrieval methods: (1) the standardized method of administration in which the child reads each paragraph aloud and then answers five questions relating to the paragraph [read/recall method]; (2) the child reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question selects the correct answer from among three choices read by the examiner [read/choice method]; (3) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and reads each of the five questions to the child to answer [listen/recall method]; and (4) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question reads three multiple-choice answers from which the child selects the correct answer [listen/choice method]. The major difference in scores was between the groups tested by the recall versus the orally read multiple-choice methods. This study indicated that poor readers who listened to the material and were tested by orally read multiple-choice format could perform as well as good readers. The performance of good readers was not affected by listening or by the method of testing. The multiple-choice testing improved the performance of poor readers independent of the input method. This supports the arguments made previously that a “bypass approach” to education of poor readers in which testing is accomplished using an orally read multiple-choice format can enhance the child's school performance on reading-related tasks. Using a listening while reading input method may further enhance performance.

A study of the behavior of the crow Corvus Americanus Aud. by the multiple choice method.

1915 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. Coburn ◽  
Robert M. Yerkes
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Method

A nonparametric multiple choice method within the random utility framework

2000 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
J u-Chin Huang ◽  
Douglas W. Nychka
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Random Utility ◽  
Choice Method

scholarly journals A written trade test: multiple choice method.

1919 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crosby J. Chapman ◽  
Herbert A. Toops
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Method
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document