1969
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(69)90999-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two Systems of Marking Objective Examination Questions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

1969
1969
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The T/F items were scored according to the Glasgow scheme (Harden et al 1969), which seeks to discourage random guessing by offering a ‘don't know’ option and by ‘fair’ countermarking of wrong responses. The availability of the ‘don't know’ option enables the derivation of precise candidate abstention indices.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The T/F items were scored according to the Glasgow scheme (Harden et al 1969), which seeks to discourage random guessing by offering a ‘don't know’ option and by ‘fair’ countermarking of wrong responses. The availability of the ‘don't know’ option enables the derivation of precise candidate abstention indices.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The items of the theory paper were drawn from a repository of questions shown by previous analysis to possess satisfactory facility and discrimination (Lipton and Huxham, 1970). Wrong answers were ''fairly'' countermarked as per the Glasgow scheme (Harden et al, 1969).…”
Section: Assessment and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All the questions in the theory paper were drawn from the test of 5 years earlier and were scored according to the Glasgow scheme (Harden et al, 1969). Knowledge levels (Nnodim, 1988) were computed using uncorrected scores.…”
Section: Assessment and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%