Intraindividual and Interindividual Positional Preference Response Styles in Ability Tests

Hopkins, Kenneth D.; Hopkins, Bryan

doi:10.1177/001316446402400407

Educational and Psychological Measurement

1964

DOI: 10.1177/001316446402400407

|View full text |Cite

Intraindividual and Interindividual Positional Preference Response Styles in Ability Tests

Kenneth D. Hopkins

Bryan Hopkins

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1970

2015

Publication Types

Select...

Article6

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent6

Authors

Journals

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 11. Other position effects in test taking appeared in the literature in earlier decades. Some authors report a preference for early responses (Clark, 1956; Gustav, 1963), some for later responses (Marcus, 1963), some for neither (Hopkins & Hopkins, 1964), and some for both (Atwell & Wells, 1937; McNamara & Weitzman, 1945). Generally speaking, “The few studies on positional bias … are inconclusive because of methodological and conceptual problems” (Fagley, 1987, p. 95). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays

Bar-Hillel

2015

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From drop-down computer menus to department-store aisles, people in everyday life often choose from simultaneous displays of products or options. Studies of position effects in such choices show seemingly inconsistent results. For example, in restaurant choice, items enjoy an advantage when placed at the beginning or end of the menu listings, but in multiple-choice tests, answers are more popular when placed in the middle of the offered list. When reaching for a bottle on a supermarket shelf, bottles in the middle of the display are more popular. But on voting ballots, first is the most advantageous position. Some of the effects are quite sensible, whereas others are harder to justify and can aptly be regarded as biases. This article attempts to put position effects into a unified and coherent framework and to account for them simply by using a small number of familiar psychological principles.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays

Bar-Hillel

2015

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However when subjects have been confronted with examination tasks of a meaningful nature the findings of various researchers have been in conflict. Gustav (1963) and McNamara and Weitzman (1945) found significant positional response tendencies; contrary evidence was revealed in studies by Marcus (1963) and Hopkins and Hopkins (1964). This research was an attempt at clarifying these contradictory results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Positional Response Set Among High School Students on Multiple‐choice Tests

Wilbur

1970

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigations of positional response set in examinees of multiple-choice items have shown conflicting results. This study attempted to clarify this controversy. Over 1000 subjects were assigned at random to one of nine forms of a specially prepared vocabulary test. The difference among forms related to the position of the correct answers and the most popular distractor as determined by prior administrations of the test. The forms of the test were constructed so that if a universal positional response set existed, it would manifest itself as a difference of means of scores obtained on selected items dispersed throughout each of the different forms. The results of the analysis of variance showed no significant evidence of interindividual positional response set.The existence of a positional response set has been clearly established in studies where the test content had little meaning. Rapaport and Berg (1954) found students exhibited a significant positional response set when instructed to imagine themselves in a test situation and to respond on an answer sheet to the questions invented. Metfessal (1955), using an answer sheet with nonsense syllables as responses, also found evidence of a positional set. However when subjects have been confronted with examination tasks of a meaningful nature the findings of various researchers have been in conflict. Gustav (1963) and McNamara and Weitzman (1945) found significant positional response tendencies; contrary evidence was revealed in studies by Marcus (1963) and Hopkins and Hopkins (1964). This research was an attempt at clarifying these contradictory results. METHODThis study was designed in an attempt to (a) avoid establishing a response set due to frequent reinforcement of a particular position, (b) create a meaningful testing situation at an appropriate difficulty level and yet (c) keep the instrument uncomplicated in order to reduce the influence of other test taking "rules of thumb" procedures.Three vocabulary instruments, each composed of 80 items, were developed for three ability groupings (high, middle and low) of high school juniors.The tests were administered to a pilot group of 500 students and the 20 items having the highest point biserial correlations with total score were identified and called the 20 "critical items." On each test the 20 critical items were randomized throughout.Each test consisted of nine different forms in order to manipulate the critical items in nine different ways. The forms were constructed as follows: Form 1 had the correct answers for the 20 critical items in the first position. Form 2 had the most popular distractor for the critical items in the first position. Form 3 had the correct answers in the second position. Form 4 had the most popular distractor in the 161

show abstract

“…The few studies on positional response bias in multiplechoice achievement tests and classroom tests are inconclusive because of methodological and conceptual problems. The methodological problems included failure to randomize the position of keyed responses (e.g., Clark, 1956;Gustav, 1963;Wevrick, 1962); inclusion of unequal numbers of a-, b-, c-, and d-keyed items {e.g., Hopkins & Hopkins, 1964); failure to consider the effects of visual cues provided by answer sheets (e.g., Cronbach, 1950;Marcus, 1963); and violation of statistical assumptions (e.g., Marcus;McNamara & Weitzman, 1945;Rapaport & Berg, 1955).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Positional response bias in multiple-choice tests of learning: Its relation to testwiseness and guessing strategy.

Fagley

1987

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although response sets have been extensively investigated as determiners of individual responses to personality tests, their impact on educational tests has not been well studied. In this study, I investigated positional response bias, testwiseness, and guessing strategy as components of variance in test responses on multiple-choice tests of learning. University students (A r = 62) enrolled in a learning skills course responded to two content exams, a testwiseness measure, and a guessing strategy measure. Of the students, 6 showed a statistically significant tendency to mark early options. The proportion of variance in test scores accounted for by positional response bias, testwiseness, and guessing strategy was . 18 (R = .43, p < .05). Scores on the content exams were confounded by students' degree of testwiseness and, in six cases, by a positional response bias.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Intraindividual and Interindividual Positional Preference Response Styles in Ability Tests

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays

Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays

Positional Response Set Among High School Students on Multiple‐choice Tests

Positional response bias in multiple-choice tests of learning: Its relation to testwiseness and guessing strategy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About