SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

The Use of Three-Option Multiple Choice Items for Classroom Assessment

Erkan Hasan ATALMIŞ
Pages
314–324
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results are discussed in relation to promoting quality classroom assessment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although multiple-choice items (MCIs) are widely used for classroom assessment, designing MCIs with sufficient number of plausible distracters is very challenging for teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, previous empirical studies reveal that using three-option MCIs provides various advantages when compared to four-option MCIs due to less preparation and administration time.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results are discussed in relation to promoting quality classroom assessment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Classroom Assessment · Item-Writing Guidelines · Number of Options

Abstract

Although multiple-choice items (MCIs) are widely used for classroom assessment, designing MCIs with sufficient number of plausible distracters is very challenging for teachers. In this regard, previous empirical studies reveal that using three-option MCIs provides various advantages when compared to four-option MCIs due to less preparation and administration time. This study examines how different elimination methods; namely, the least selected and the random methods, influence item difficulty, item discrimination and test reliability on decreasing the number of options in MCIs from four to three. The research findings have revealed that the concerning methods did not affect item difficulty, item discrimination, and test reliability negatively. Results are discussed in relation to promoting quality classroom assessment.

Özet

Although multiple-choice items (MCIs) are widely used for classroom assessment, designing MCIs with sufficient number of plausible distracters is very challenging for teachers. In this regard, previous empirical studies reveal that using three-option MCIs provides various advantages when compared to four-option MCIs due to less preparation and administration time. This study examines how different elimination methods; namely, the least selected and the random methods, influence item difficulty, item discrimination and test reliability on decreasing the number of options in MCIs from four to three. The research findings have revealed that the concerning methods did not affect item difficulty, item discrimination, and test reliability negatively. Results are discussed in relation to promoting quality classroom assessment.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALMIŞ, E. H. (2022). The Use of Three-Option Multiple Choice Items for Classroom Assessment. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 314–324. https://ajindex.com/articles/540243

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Aamodt, M. G., & McShane, T. D. (1992). A meta-analytic investigation of the effect of various test item characteristics on test scores and test completion times. Public Personnel Management, 21(2), 151–160.
  2. Abad, F., Olea, J., & Ponsoda, V. (2001). Analysis of the optimum number alternatives from the Item Response Theory. Psicothema, 13(1), 152-158.
  3. AERA, APA, & NCME (2014). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atalmis, E. H., & Kingston, N. M. (2017). Three, four, and none of the above options in multiple-choice items. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(4), 143-157.
  4. Baghaei, P., & Amrahi, N. (2011). The effects of the number of options on the psychometric characteristics of multiple choice items. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(2), 192-211.
  5. Balta, N., &Eryılmaz, A. (2017). Counterintuitive dynamics test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(3), 411-431.
  6. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational leadership, 60(1), 40-44.
  7. Cizek, G. J., & O'Day, D. M. (1994). Further investigation of nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 861-872.
  8. Collins, J. (2006). Education techniques for lifelong learning: Writing multiple-choice questions 63 for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. RadioGraphics, 26(2), 543-551.
  9. 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(1), 241-247.
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us?. Educational researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
  11. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Publications. Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (1998). Further evidence favoring three-option items in multiple-choice tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 197-201.
  12. Dehnad, A., Nasser, H., & Hosseini, A. F. (2014). A comparison between three-and four-option multiple choice questions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 398-40