New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items

Methodology

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 65-72

  Moreno, Rafael ^a   Martínez, Rafael J ^a   Muñiz, José ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OVIEDO   (Spain)

Author keywords

Guidelines; Item construction; Multiple choice items; Performance; Psychometric tests

Indexed keywords

EID: 34748837720     PISSN: 16141881     EISSN: 16142241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.65     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abad, F. J., Olea, J., & Ponsoda, V. (2001). Analysis of the optimum number of alternatives from the item response theory. Psicothema, 13, 152-158.
2. Aguerri, M. E., Galibert, M. S., Zanelli, M. L., & Attorresi, H. F. (2005). Detección errónea del funcionamiento diferencial del item. Una comparación de métodos. [Erroneous detection of differential item functioning. A comparison of methods.] Psicothema, 17, 350-355.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Bruno, J. E., & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic perspective. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 55, 959-966.
5. Crocker, L., & Algina, G. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
6. Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (1998). Further evidence favouring three-option items in multiple-choice tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14, 197-201.
7. Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G., De Corte, E., & Segers, M. (2001). The assessment of quantitative problem-solving skills with "none of the above" items. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 163-177.
8. Dudycha, A. L., & Carpenter, J. B. (1973). Effects of item format on item discrimination and difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 116-121.
9. Elosua, P., & Lopez, A. (2005). Clases latentes y funcionamiento diferencial del item. [Latent classes and differential item functioning.] Psicothema, 17, 516-521.
10. Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
11. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989a). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 37-50.
12. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989b). The validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice test item. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 51-78.
13. Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309-334.
14. Hidalgo, M. D., Gómez-Benito, J., & Padilla, J. L. (2005). Regresión logística: alternativas de análisis en la detección del funcionamiento diferencial del ítem. [Logistic regression: Alternatives of analysis in the detection of differential item functioning.] Psicothema, 17, 509-515.
15. Hoepfl, M. C. (1994). Developing and evaluating multiple choice tests. Technology Teacher, 53, 25-26.
16. Marrelli, A. F. (1995). Writing multiple-choice test items. Performance & Instruction, 34, 24-29.
17. Martínez, R., Moreno, R., Martín, I., Trigo, E., & López, J. (April 2004). Evaluation of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines. Paper presented at the VII European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Málaga, Spain.
18. Martínez, R., Moreno, R, & Muñiz, J. (2005). Construcción de ítems. [Construction of items.] In J. Muñiz, A. A. M. Fidalgo,
19. E. García-Cueto, R. Martínez, & R. Moreno, Análisis de ítems (pp. 9-52). Madrid, Spain: La Muralla.
20. Millman, J., & Greene, J. (1989). The specification and development of tests of achievement and ability. In R. L. Lindd (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 335-366). New York: Macmillan.
21. Moreno, R., Martínez, R. J., & Muñiz, J. (2004). Directrices para la construcción de ítems de elección múltiple. [Guidelines for the construction of multiple-choice items.] Psicothema, 16, 490-497.
22. Mueller, D. J. (1975). An assessment of the effectiveness of complex alternatives in multiple choice achievement test items. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 35, 135-141.
23. Osterlind, S. J. (1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 24, 3-13.
25. Rogers, W. T., & Harley, D. (1999). An empirical comparison of three-and four-choice items and tests: Susceptibility to test-wiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59, 234-247.
26. Roid, G. H., & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.
27. Tomás-Sábato, J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2005). Construction and validation of the death anxiety inventory (DAI). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 108-114.