A comparison of three- and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan

Language Testing

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 35-57

  Shizuka, Tetsuhito ^a   Takeuchi, Osamu ^a   Yashima, Tomoko ^a   Yoshizawa, Kiyomi ^a  

^a KANSAI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144483535     PISSN: 02655322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0265532206lt319oa     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aamodt, M.G. and McShane, T. 1992: A meta-analytic investigation of the effect of various test item characteristics on test scores and test completion times. Public Personnel Management 21, 151-60.
2. Brown, J.D. 1995: English language entrance examinations in Japan: myths and facts. The Language Teacher 19, 21-26.
3. Bruno, J.E. and Dirkzwager, A. 1995: Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: an information theoretic perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55, 959-66.
4. Budescu, D.V. and Nevo, B. 1985: Optimal number of options: an investigation of the assumption of proportionality. Journal of Educational Measurement 22, 183-96.
5. Cizek, G.J. and O'Day, D.M. 1994: Further investigation of nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54, 861-72.
6. Costin, F. 1970: The optimal number of alternatives in multiple-choice tests: some empirical evidence for a mathematical proof. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 353-58.
7. Costin, F. 1972: Three-choice versus four-choice items: implications for reliability and validity of objective achievement tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32, 1035-38.
8. Crehan, K.D., Haladyna, T.M. and Brewer, B.W. 1993: Use of an inclusive option and the optimal number of options for multiple-choice items. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 241-47.
9. Delgado, A.R. and Prieto, G. 1998: Further evidence favoring three-option items in multiple-choice tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 14, 197-201.
10. Downing, S.M. 1992: True-false and alternative-choice formats: a review of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 11, 27-30.
11. Ebel, R.L. 1968: Blind guessing on objective achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement 5, 321-25.
12. Green, K., Sax, and Michael, W.B. 1982: Validity and reliability of tests having different numbers of options for students of differing levels of ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 42, 239-45.
13. Gronlund, N. 1988: How to construct achievement tests. 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall.
14. Haladyna, T.M. 1997: Writing test items to evaluate higher order thinking. Allyn and Bacon.
15. Haladyna, T.M. 1999: Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. 2nd Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Haladyna, T.M. and Downing, S.M. 1989: Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education 2, 51-78.
17. Haladyna, T.M. 1993: How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test items? Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 999-1010.
18. Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M. and Rodriguez, M.C. 2002: A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education 15, 309-34.
19. Landrum, R.E., Cashin, J.R. and Theis, K.S. 1993: More evidence in favor of three-option multiple-choice tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 771-78.
20. Linacre, J.M. 2004: A user's guide to WINSTEPS/MINISTEPS: Rasch-model computer programs. Institute for Objective Measurement.
21. Linn, R.L. and Gronlund, N.E. 2000: Measurement and assessment in teaching. 8th Edition. Prentice-Hall.
22. Lord, F. 1977: Optimal number of choices per item: a comparison of four approaches. Journal of Educational Measurement 14, 33-38.
23. Owen, S.V. and Froman, R.D. 1987: What's wrong with three-option multiple-choice items? Educational and Psychological Measurement 47, 513-22.
24. Ramos, R.J. and Stern, J. 1973: Item behavior associated with changes in the number of alternatives in multiple choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement 10, 305-10.
25. Rogers, W.T. and Harley, D. 1999: An empirical comparison of three- and four-choice items and tests: susceptibility to testwiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59, 234-47.
26. Sato, T. and Morimoto, U. 1976: Sentaku-shi keishiki tesuto kaitou bunpu no bunseki [Analyzing endorsement distribution of selected-response items]. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Behaviometric Society of Japan. Behaviometric Society of Japan.
27. Sidick, J.T., Barrett, G.V. and Doverspike, D. 1994: Three-alternative multiple-choice tests: an attractive option. Personnel Psychology 47, 829-35.
28. Smith, R.M., Schumacker, R.E. and Bush, M.J. 1998: Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement 2, 66-78.
29. Straton, R.G. and Catts, R.M. 1980: A comparison of two, three, and four-choice item tests given a fixed total number of choices. Educational and Psychological Measurement 40, 357-65.
30. Trevisan, M.S., Sax, G. and Michael, W.B. 1991: The effects of the number of options per item and student ability on test validity and reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51, 829-37.
31. Trevisan, M.S., Sax, G. and Michael, W.B. 1994: Estimating the optimum number of options per item using an incremental option paradigm. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54, 86-91.
32. Tversky, A. 1964: On the optimal number of alternatives at a choice point. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 386-91.
33. Williams, B.J. and Ebel, R.L. 1957: The effect of varying the number of alternatives per item on multiple-choice vocabulary test items. In Huddleton, E.M., editor, The 14th Yearbook of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Michigan State University, 63-65.
34. Wright, B.D. and Masters, G.N. 1982: Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.