Item-option weighting of achievement tests: Comparative study of methods

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

View/Download File

Persistent link to this item

Statistics
View Statistics

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Title

Item-option weighting of achievement tests: Comparative study of methods

Published Date

1979

Publisher

Type

Article

Abstract

Previous research has studied the effects of different methods of item-option weighting on the reliability and the concurrent and predictive validity of achievement tests. Generally, increases in reliability are found, but with mixed results for validity. This research attempted to interrelate several methods of producing option weights (i.e., Guttman internal and external weights and judges’ weights) and examined their effects on reliability and on concurrent, predictive, and face validity. Option weights to maximize reliability produced cross-validated (N = 974) increases in Hoyt reliability over rights-only scoring (.82 versus .58, respectively) ; decreases in correlations with other achievement tests; few changes in predictive validity ; and a loss in face validity (i.e., some correct options had lower weights than incorrect options). Weights to maximize validity did not cross-validate and led to a reduction in reliability and to mixed validity results. Judges’ weights produced increases in reliability and mixed results with validity. The size of Guttman weights were shown to interact with item-option and test characteristics. It was concluded that option weighting offered limited, if any, improvement over unit weighting.

Keywords

Description

Related to

Replaces

License

Series/Report Number

Funding information

Isbn identifier

Doi identifier

Previously Published Citation

Downey, Ronald G. (1979). Item-option weighting of achievement tests: Comparative study of methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 453-461. doi:10.1177/014662167900300403

Suggested citation

Downey, Ronald G.. (1979). Item-option weighting of achievement tests: Comparative study of methods. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/99831.

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.