The effect of the multiple-choice item format on the measurement of knowledge of language structure

Language Testing

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 471-491

  Currie, Michael ^a   Chiramanee, Thanyapa ^a  

^a PRINCE OF SONGKLA UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

construct equivalence; constructed response; grammar; item format; language structure; multiple choice; Thailand

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049456296     PISSN: 02655322     EISSN: 14770946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0265532209356790     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Allen, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test takers. Language Testing, 9, 101-122.
2. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing, 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
3. Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bamett-Foster, D., & Nagy, P. (1996). Undergraduate student response strategies to test questions of varying format. Higher Education, 32(2), 177-198.
5. Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K.K. (1987). Open-ended versus multiple-choice response formats - it does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385-395.
6. Birenbaum, M., Tatsuoka, K.K., & Gutvirtz, Y. (1992). Effects of response format on diagnostic assessment of scholastic achievement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(4), 353-363.
7. Bridgeman, B. (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open ended and multiple-choice formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(3), 253-271.
8. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
9. Cheng, H.F. (2004). A Comparison of multiple-choice and open ended formats for the assessment of listening proficiency in English. (Electronic version) Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 544-555.
10. David, G. (2007). Investigating the performance of alternative types of grammar items. Language Testing, 24, 65-97.
11. Dobson, B.K. (1974). Student generated distractors in ESL tests. In Crymes, R., & Norris, W. E. (Eds.), On TESOL '74 (pp. 181-188). Washington, DC: TESOL.
12. Gorsuch, G. (2000). EFL education policies and educational cultures: influences on teachers' approval of communicative activities TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 675-709.
13. Haladyna, T.M., & Downing S.M. (2004). Construct irrelevant variance in high stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
14. Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-705.
15. Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24(3), 391-415.
16. Messick, S.A. (1993). Trait equivalence as construct validity of score interpretation across multiple methods of measurement. In Bennett R. E., & Ward W. C. (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed-response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (Electronic version on Questia database, pp. 61-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Ministry of Education (2001). The Basic Education Curriculum 2001. Bangkok: Thailand.
18. Musigrungsi, S. (2002). An investigation of English grammar teaching in government secondary schools in Educational region II. Unpublished MA thesis, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai campus, Thailand.
19. Pike, L.W. (1979). An evaluation of alternative formats for testing English as a foreign language. Research report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (ETS). Retrieved 18 January 2007, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-79-06.pdf.
20. Prapaisit, L. (2003). Changes in education after the educational reform in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.
21. Prapphal, K. (2008). Issues and trends in language testing and assessment in Thailand. Language Testing, 25(1), 127-143.
22. Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response items: A random effects synthesis of correlations. Journal of Educational Measurement. 40(2), 163-184.
23. Rodriguez, M.C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Summer, 3-13.
24. Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yashima, T. & Yoshizawa, Y. (2006). A comparison of 3 and 4 option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan. Language Testing, 23(1), 35-57.
25. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1(2), 147-170.
26. Thongsri, M. (2005). An investigation into the implementation of 2001 English language curriculum in government secondary schools in Songkhla. Unpublished MA thesis. Prince of Songkla University. Hatyai Campus: Thailand.
27. Traub, R.E. (1993). On the equivalence of the traits assessed by multiple-choice and constructed-response tests. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed-response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (Electronic version on Questia database, pp. 29-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Tsagari, C. (1994). Method effects on testing reading comprehension: How far can we go? Unpublished MA thesis, University of Lancaster, UK.
29. Watson Todd, R. (2008). The impact of evaluation on Thai ELT. In Ertuna, K., French, A., Faulk, C., Donnelly, D., & Kritprayoch, W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th English in South East Asia conference: Trends and Directions (pp. 118-127). Bangkok: KMUTT.
30. Wolf, D.F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77(iv), 473-489.