Evaluation of five guidelines for option development in multiple-choice item-writing;Evaluación de cinco directrices para la construcción de opciones en ítems de elección múltiple

Psicothema

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 326-330

  Martínez, Rafael J ^a   Moreno, Rafael ^a   Martín, Irene ^a   Trigo, M Eva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67549136102     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abad, F.J., Olea, J., & Ponsoda, V. (2001). Analysis of the optimum number alternatives from the item response Theory. Psicothema, 13(1), 152-158.
2. Bruno, J.E., & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 959-966.
3. Crehan, K.D., & Haladyna, T.M. (1991). The validity of two item-writing rules. Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 183-192.
4. Crehan, K.D., Haladyna, T.M., & Brewer, B.W. (1993). Use of an inclusive option and the optimal number of options for multiple-choice items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 241-247.
5. Delgado, A., & Prieto, G. (1998). Further evidence favoring three-option items in multiple-choice tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 197-201.
6. 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(2), 163-177.
7. Dudycha, A.L., & Carpenter, J.B. (1973). Effects of item format on item discrimination and difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 116-121.
8. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? Language Testing, 16(1), 2-32.
9. Gross, L.J. (1994). Logical versus empirical guidelines for writing test items: The case of «none of the above». Evaluation and the Health Professions, 17(1), 123-126.
10. Haladyna, T.M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Haladyna, T.M., & Downing, S.M. (1989a). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(1), 37-50.
12. Haladyna, T.M., & Downing, S.M. (1989b). The validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(1), 51-78.
13. Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M., & Rodríguez, M.C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-334
14. Hansen, J.D., & Dexter, L. (1997). Quality multiple-choice test questions: Item-writing guidelines and an analysis of auditing test banks. Journal of Education for Business, 73(2), 94-97.
15. Jozefowicz, R.F., Koeppen, B.M., Case, S., Galbraith, R., Swanson, D., & Glew, R.H. (2002). The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Academic Medicine, 77(2), 156-161.
16. Knowles, S.L., & Welch, C.A. (1992). A meta-analytic review of item discrimination and difficulty in multiple-choice items using «none-of-the-above». Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 571-577.
17. Marrelli, A.F. (1995). Writing multiple-choice test items. Performance and Instruction, 34, 24-29.
18. Martínez, R., Moreno, R., & Muñiz, J. (2005). Construcción de ítems. En J. Muñiz, A.M. Hidalgo, E. García-Cueto, R. Martínez y R. Moreno: Análisis de los ítems (pp. 9-52). Madrid: La Muralla.
19. Moreno, R., Martínez, R.J., & Muñiz, J. (2004). Directrices para la construcción de ítems de elección múltiple. Psicothema, 16, 490-497.
20. Moreno, R., Martínez, R., & Muñiz, J. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items. Methodology, 2, 65-72
21. Mueller, D.J. (1975). An assessment of the effectiveness of complex alternatives in multiple choice achievement test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 135-141.
22. Osterlind, S.J. (1998). Constructing test items: multiple choice, constructed response, performance and other formats (2nd). Boston: Kluwer.
23. Rogers, W.T., & 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(2), 234-247.
24. Roid, G.H., & Haladyna, T.M. (1982). Toward a technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.
25. Sireci, S.G., Wiley, A., & Keller, L.A. (1998). An empirical evaluation of selected multiple-choice item writing guidelines. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association.
26. University of Seville, Faculty of Psychology, Coordinating Group of the Tutorial Action Plan (2008). Perfil de ingreso de los estudiantes de Psicología de la Universidad de Sevilla [Profile of first-year undergraduate students in Psychology at the University of Seville]. Unpublished manuscript. University of Seville.