A Problem with the Bookmark Procedure's Correction for Guessing

Author(s):  
Peter Baldwin
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Paz Espinosa ◽  
Javier Gardeazabal

AbstractThis paper analyzes gender differences in student performance in Multiple-Choice Tests (MCT). We report evidence from a field experiment suggesting that, when MCT use a correction for guessing formula to obtain test scores, on average women tend to omit more items, get less correct answers and lower grades than men. We find that the gender difference in average test scores is concentrated at the upper tail of the distribution of scores. In addition, gender differences strongly depend on the framing of the scoring rule.


2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1149-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Prihoda ◽  
R. Neal Pinckard ◽  
C. Alex McMahan ◽  
John H. Littlefield ◽  
Anne Cale Jones

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
James W. Creaser ◽  
Ellis B. Little

This analysis examines test scores which have been derived from the correction-for-guessing formula. Studies referred to have shown that significant discrepancies usually exist between Corrected Scores and Absolute Scores (measures of “pure knowledge”) for group averages. New data are presented which show that the correlations between Corrected Scores and Absolute Scores are not high enough to interpret the two as measuring the same attribute. Correlations of Corrected Scores with Relative (total right) Scores are significantly higher than with Absolute Scores. The conclusion is that Corrected Scores are not good estimates of “pure knowledge,” either for group or individual data.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Ávila ◽  
Rafael Torrubia

The relation between personality and type of error made in multiple‐choice examinations when correction for guessing is applied was investigated across two studies. Our general hypothesis was that disinhibited subjects (those scoring high on the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale and/or low on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) scale) would make more incorrect responses and fewer omission errors (blanks) than inhibited subjects (those with high SP and/or low SR scores). The meta‐analyses of 19 examinations in study 1 confirmed our hypotheses for SP, SR, and extraversion. Regression analyses on effect sizes revealed that SP differences were obtained in examinations with low marks, whereas SR differences were obtained in examinations with more responses and fewer questions. Study 2 showed that a low‐mark expectation increased omissions in high‐SP subjects, whereas a high‐mark expectation increased incorrect responses in high‐SR subjects. These results suggest two different mechanisms mediating inhibition/disinhibition: one associated with aversive motivation, and the other with appetitive motivation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


1975 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Hansen ◽  
F. L. Schmidt ◽  
J. C. Hansen

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ineke Huibregtse ◽  
Wilfried Admiraal ◽  
Paul Meara

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document