scholarly journals مقارنة طریقتین لتصحیح تقدیر القدرة من أثر التخمین باستخدام محک نسب الترجیح Comparing Two Ability Estimate Correction for Guessing Methods Using the Correctness Probability Reference

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-196
Author(s):  
شادیة عبد العزیز مهتدی منتصر ◽  
حسان مخلوف خلاف مخلوف
Keyword(s):  
Correction For Guessing ◽  
Ability Estimate

The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Paz Espinosa ◽  
Javier Gardeazabal
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
College Admission ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Choice Tests ◽  
Correction For Guessing

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.

Prospective Implementation of Correction for Guessing in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Multiple-Choice Examinations: Did Student Performance Improve?

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1149-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Prihoda ◽  
R. Neal Pinckard ◽  
C. Alex McMahan ◽  
John H. Littlefield ◽  
Anne Cale Jones
Keyword(s):  
Student Performance ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Correction For Guessing

Formula Scoring: Absolute or Relative?

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
James W. Creaser ◽  
Ellis B. Little
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Formula Scoring ◽  
Correction For Guessing ◽  
Pure Knowledge

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.

Personality, expectations, and response strategies in multiple‐choice question examinations in university students: a test of Gray's hypotheses

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Ávila ◽  
Rafael Torrubia
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
General Hypothesis ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Appetitive Motivation ◽  
Correction For Guessing ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Aversive Motivation ◽  
Omission Errors ◽  
Sensitivity To Punishment ◽  
Made In

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.

A model for the correction for guessing on multiple-choice tests

1975 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Hansen ◽  
F. L. Schmidt ◽  
J. C. Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Choice Tests ◽  
Correction For Guessing

Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: correction for guessing and response style

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ineke Huibregtse ◽  
Wilfried Admiraal ◽  
Paul Meara
Keyword(s):  
Response Style ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Correction For Guessing

scholarly journals Rethinking the Interpretation of Item Discrimination and Factor Loadings

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 1103-1132
Author(s):  
Pascal Jordan ◽  
Martin Spiess
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Scale Construction ◽  
Item Discrimination ◽  
Factor Loadings ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Latent Ability ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ability Estimate

Factor loadings and item discrimination parameters play a key role in scale construction. A multitude of heuristics regarding their interpretation are hardwired into practice—for example, neglecting low loadings and assigning items to exactly one scale. We challenge the common sense interpretation of these parameters by providing counterexamples and general results which altogether cast doubt on our understanding of these parameters. In particular, we highlight the counterintuitive way in which the best prediction of a test taker’s latent ability depends on the factor loadings. As a consequence, we emphasize that practitioners need to shift their focus from interpreting item discrimination parameters by their relative loading to an interpretation which incorporates the structure of the model-based latent ability estimate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document