On the equivalence of constructed-response and multiple-choice tests
Loading...
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
On the equivalence of constructed-response and multiple-choice tests
Authors
Published Date
1977
Publisher
Type
Article
Abstract
Two sets of mathematical reasoning and two
sets of verbal comprehension items were cast into
each of three formats-constructed response,
standard multiple-choice, and Coombs multiple-choice-in order to assess whether tests with identical
content but different formats measure the
same attribute, except for possible differences in
error variance and scaling factors. The resulting
12 tests were administered to 199 eighth-grade students.
The hypothesis of equivalent measures was
rejected for only two comparisons: the constructed-response measure of verbal comprehension
was different from both the standard and the
Coombs multiple-choice measures of this ability.
Maximum likelihood factor analysis confirmed the
hypothesis that a five-factor structure will give a
satisfactory account of the common variance
among the 12 tests. As expected, the two major
factors were mathematical reasoning and verbal
comprehension. Contrary to expectation, only one
of the other three factors bore a (weak) resemblance
to a format factor. Tests marking the ability
to follow directions, recall and recognition
memory, and risk-taking were included, but these
variables did not correlate as expected with the
three minor factors.
Keywords
Description
Related to
Replaces
License
Series/Report Number
Funding information
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
Previously Published Citation
Traub, Ross E & Fisher, Charles W. (1977). On the equivalence of constructed-response and multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 355-369. doi:10.1177/014662167700100304
Suggested citation
Traub, Ross E.; Fisher, Charles W.. (1977). On the equivalence of constructed-response and multiple-choice tests. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/98559.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.