Comparisons of Short Answer and Multiple Choice Tests Covering Identical Subject Content

Hurd, A. W.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1932.10880276

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He thought that inconsistencies seemed too large to justify equivalence in validity argument. Those forms that were administered one day apart (Ruch & Stoddard, 1925;Hurd, 1932) resulted in slightly lower corrected correlations (.95 and -89). Ruch and Stoddard suggested that CR items were more reliable, item for item, due to the lack of guessing effects present in MC items.…”

Section: Existing Empirical Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Construct Equivalence of Multiple‐Choice and Constructed‐Response Items: A Random Effects Synthesis of Correlations

Rodriguez

2003

J Educational Measurement

110

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A thorough search of the literature was conducted to locate empirical studies investigating the trait or construct equivalence of multiple-choice (MC) and constructed-response (CR) items. O f the 67 studies identified, 29 studies included 56 correlations between item in both f o m t s . These 56 correlations were corrected for attenuation and synthesized to establish evidence for a common estimate of correlation (true-score correlations). The 56 disattenuated correlations were highly heterogeneous. A search for moderators to explain this variation uncovered the role of the design characteristics of test items used in the studies. When items are constructed in both formats using the same stem (stem equivalent), the mean corretation between the two formats approaches unity and is signijkantly higher than when using non-stem-equivalent items (particularly when using essay-type items). Construct equivalence, in part, appears to be a function of the item design method or the item writer's intent.

show abstract

Section: Existing Empirical Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Construct Equivalence of Multiple‐Choice and Constructed‐Response Items: A Random Effects Synthesis of Correlations

Rodriguez

2003

J Educational Measurement

110

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, some authors test whether the correlation coefficients (corrected for test unreliability) between scores on tests differing in item format differ from unity (Hogan, 1981;Mellenbergh, 1971). Others interpret correlation coefficients of at least .80 as proof of the null hypothesis, which is that there are no differences in intellectual skills measured on tests with openended and multiple-choice items (Hurd, 1930;Paterson, 1926).…”

Section: University Of Utrechtmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Construct Validity of Multiple- Choice Items for Reading Comprehension

Bergh

1990

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study 590 third-grade students took one of four reading comprehension tests with either multiplechoice items or open-ended items. Each also took 32 tests indicating 16 semantic Structure-of-Intellect (si) abilities. Four conditions or groups were distinguished on the basis of the reading comprehension tests. The four 33 x 33 correlation matrices were analyzed simultaneously with a four-group LISREL model. The 16 intellectual abilities explained approximately 62% of the variance in true reading comprehension scores. None of the SI abilities proved to be differentially related to item type. Therefore, it was concluded that item type for reading comprehension is congeneric with respect to the SI abilities measured. Index terms: construct validity, item format, free response, reading comprehension, Structure-of-Intellect model.Since the early 1920s the question of whether items in different formats tap the same mental functions has been an active area of research. Unfortunately, the results of different studies are equivocal. Some authors have claimed that there are no differences between tests with different item formats (

show abstract

“…But for largely uncharted terrain like evaluative attitudes toward presidential performance, open‐ended questions are a uniquely appropriate strategy, worth “the trouble they take to ask and the complexities inherent in the analysis of their answers” (Krosnick, Judd, and Wittenbrink , 35; see also Holbrook et al ). In addition, past studies show that they have higher reliability and validity than closed‐ended questions (Hurd ; Remmers et al ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen Oversight of Presidential Performance

Buchanan

2016

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presidential oversight is a core citizen duty, yet competence is rarely assessed. I use 855 interviews conducted during the final Bush and initial Obama terms to test a novel citizen oversight assessment tool: a classification matrix created by juxtaposing historically important presidential assessment values (effectiveness, morality, and prudence) against equally familiar evaluative “targets” (presidential traits, actions, and results). Eighty‐one percent of mentioned evaluative criteria fit the matrix, establishing its construct validity and enabling meaningful assessment of citizen competence. The yield is (1) a cross‐time record of how Americans judge presidents and (2) new findings concerning the comparative importance of presidential results and actions, citizen sensitivity to presidential differences, and the worrisome rise of partisanship.

show abstract

Comparisons of Short Answer and Multiple Choice Tests Covering Identical Subject Content

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Construct Equivalence of Multiple‐Choice and Constructed‐Response Items: A Random Effects Synthesis of Correlations

Construct Equivalence of Multiple‐Choice and Constructed‐Response Items: A Random Effects Synthesis of Correlations

On the Construct Validity of Multiple- Choice Items for Reading Comprehension

Citizen Oversight of Presidential Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About