A brief report on a comparison of six scoring methods for multiple true-false items

fu ju Tsai, Hoi K. Suen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Six methods of scoring multiple true-false items were compared in terms of the reliabilities, difficulties, and discrimination. It was found that the differences in reliabilities and discrimination values were not statistically significant. After adjustments for scoring metrics were made, the multiple true-false, the correction-for-guessing, and the let-omit method were found to yield higher item means (i.e., easier), whereas the multiple response method yielded the lowest item mean. Results of this study suggest that, for norm-referenced score interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to support any one of the six methods as superior to others psychometrically. For criterion-referenced score interpretations, however, the effects of the scoring method on score interpretation and the determination of passing scores need to be taken into consideration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)399-404
Number of pages6
JournalEducational and Psychological Measurement
Volume53
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1993

Fingerprint

Scoring
Research Design
interpretation
Discrimination
discrimination
Multiple Responses
Lowest
Adjustment
False
Norm
Metric
evidence
Interpretation
Values

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Applied Psychology
  • Applied Mathematics

Cite this

@article{6edf16f7776a420f86a31f3c8e344943,
title = "A brief report on a comparison of six scoring methods for multiple true-false items",
abstract = "Six methods of scoring multiple true-false items were compared in terms of the reliabilities, difficulties, and discrimination. It was found that the differences in reliabilities and discrimination values were not statistically significant. After adjustments for scoring metrics were made, the multiple true-false, the correction-for-guessing, and the let-omit method were found to yield higher item means (i.e., easier), whereas the multiple response method yielded the lowest item mean. Results of this study suggest that, for norm-referenced score interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to support any one of the six methods as superior to others psychometrically. For criterion-referenced score interpretations, however, the effects of the scoring method on score interpretation and the determination of passing scores need to be taken into consideration.",
author = "Tsai, {fu ju} and Suen, {Hoi K.}",
year = "1993",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0013164493053002008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "399--404",
journal = "Educational and Psychological Measurement",
issn = "0013-1644",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

A brief report on a comparison of six scoring methods for multiple true-false items. / Tsai, fu ju; Suen, Hoi K.

In: Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53, No. 2, 01.01.1993, p. 399-404.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A brief report on a comparison of six scoring methods for multiple true-false items

AU - Tsai, fu ju

AU - Suen, Hoi K.

PY - 1993/1/1

Y1 - 1993/1/1

N2 - Six methods of scoring multiple true-false items were compared in terms of the reliabilities, difficulties, and discrimination. It was found that the differences in reliabilities and discrimination values were not statistically significant. After adjustments for scoring metrics were made, the multiple true-false, the correction-for-guessing, and the let-omit method were found to yield higher item means (i.e., easier), whereas the multiple response method yielded the lowest item mean. Results of this study suggest that, for norm-referenced score interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to support any one of the six methods as superior to others psychometrically. For criterion-referenced score interpretations, however, the effects of the scoring method on score interpretation and the determination of passing scores need to be taken into consideration.

AB - Six methods of scoring multiple true-false items were compared in terms of the reliabilities, difficulties, and discrimination. It was found that the differences in reliabilities and discrimination values were not statistically significant. After adjustments for scoring metrics were made, the multiple true-false, the correction-for-guessing, and the let-omit method were found to yield higher item means (i.e., easier), whereas the multiple response method yielded the lowest item mean. Results of this study suggest that, for norm-referenced score interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to support any one of the six methods as superior to others psychometrically. For criterion-referenced score interpretations, however, the effects of the scoring method on score interpretation and the determination of passing scores need to be taken into consideration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973767085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973767085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0013164493053002008

DO - 10.1177/0013164493053002008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84973767085

VL - 53

SP - 399

EP - 404

JO - Educational and Psychological Measurement

JF - Educational and Psychological Measurement

SN - 0013-1644

IS - 2

ER -