Impact analysis on test items between IEC 60065, IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1

The option “none of these” improves multiple-choice test items

Journal of Dental Education ◽

10.1002/j.0022-0337.1991.55.2.tb02500.x ◽

1991 ◽

Vol 55 (2) ◽

pp. 161-163 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

RK Kolstad ◽

RA Kolstad

Keyword(s):

Multiple Choice ◽

Choice Test ◽

Multiple Choice Test ◽

Test Items

Download Full-text

The Old Days Test: Scholastic Aptitude Test Items from the 1920s Revisited

Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance ◽

10.1080/00256307.1983.12022323 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 15 (4) ◽

pp. 274-282

Author(s):

Thomas F. Donlon ◽

Nancy Breland

Keyword(s):

Scholastic Aptitude Test ◽

Aptitude Test ◽

Test Items ◽

Scholastic Aptitude

Download Full-text

The Reliability of Retrieval-Induced Forgetting

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027/1016-9040/a000040 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Rosalind Potts ◽

Robin Law ◽

John F. Golding ◽

David Groome

Keyword(s):

Individual Differences ◽

Recognition Test ◽

Laboratory Tests ◽

The Other ◽

Clinical Factors ◽

Test Items ◽

T1 And T2 ◽

Test Materials ◽

Induced Forgetting

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that the retrieval of an item from memory impairs the retrieval of related items. The extent to which this impairment is found in laboratory tests varies between individuals, and recent studies have reported an association between individual differences in the strength of the RIF effect and other cognitive and clinical factors. The present study investigated the reliability of these individual differences in the RIF effect. A RIF task was administered to the same individuals on two occasions (sessions T1 and T2), one week apart. For Experiments 1 and 2 the final retrieval test at each session made use of a category-cue procedure, whereas Experiment 3 employed category-plus-letter cues, and Experiment 4 used a recognition test. In Experiment 2 the same test items that were studied, practiced, and tested at T1 were also studied, practiced, and tested at T2, but for the remaining three experiments two different item sets were used at T1 and T2. A significant RIF effect was found in all four experiments. A significant correlation was found between RIF scores at T1 and T2 in Experiment 2, but for the other three experiments the correlations between RIF scores at T1 and T2 failed to reach significance. This study therefore failed to find clear evidence for reliable individual differences in RIF performance, except where the same test materials were used for both test sessions. These findings have important implications for studies involving individual differences in RIF performance.

Download Full-text