Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items
This study addressed the hypothesis that, after the systematic elimination of nonfunctioning options, four-option test items would perform as well as five-option test items having one or more dysfunctional distracters. The study consisted of two investigations involving an examination administered t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Educational and psychological measurement 1994-12, Vol.54 (4), p.861-872 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 872 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 861 |
| container_title | Educational and psychological measurement |
| container_volume | 54 |
| creator | Cizek, Gregory J. O'Day, Denis M. |
| description | This study addressed the hypothesis that, after the systematic elimination of nonfunctioning options, four-option test items would perform as well as five-option test items having one or more dysfunctional distracters. The study consisted of two investigations involving an examination administered to 700 candidates for certification in a medical specialty. In the first investigation, it was found that content experts exhibited a high degree of accuracy in identifying nonfunctioning options where the criterion was empirical item analysis data. The second phase of the study compared five-option versions of multiple-choice items with four-option versions in which a nonfunctioning option had been removed. Results indicated that (a) removal of a nonfunctioning option resulted in a slight, non significant overall increase in item difficulty and no significant differences in item discrimination, (b) a test consisting of items with a nonfunctioning option removed was nearly equally reliable compared with a set of the same items in a five-option format, and (c) the use of empirical or judgmental methods of identifying nonfunctioning options was not related to changes in item performance. Implications, cautions, and suggestions for future research are provided. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0013164494054004002 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_221544002</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ498471</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_0013164494054004002</sage_id><sourcerecordid>5834508</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c296t-a4f308aeb4de5be4d7650122a10edc55e88c36f444dbc3cb80966f4c12606d6a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kF9LwzAUxYMoOKefQB-CPldv_i59lOF0srmX-VzSNN0ytrYmreC3N6UiPqiXwM3l_s49cBC6JHBLyGRyB0AYkZynHAQHiI8eoRERgiZMKXWMRj2R9MgpOgthB7E4ISO0nHW-3VqP59W7Da3b6NbVFa5L_FJXZVeZfnTVBq-a_hewq_Cy27eu2dtkuq2dsXgdhXje2kM4Ryel3gd78dXH6HX2sJ4-JYvV43x6v0gMTWWbaF4yUNrmvLAit7yYSAGEUk3AFkYIq5RhsuScF7lhJleQyjgaQiXIQmo2RtfD3cbXb120z3Z156tomVFKBO8DiNDNXxChKUSMsjRSbKCMr0Pwtswa7w7af2QEsj7c7Jdwo-pqUFnvzLfi4Zmnik9IXMOwDnpjf9j-c_ETVQ2B1A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1290154239</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Cizek, Gregory J. ; O'Day, Denis M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cizek, Gregory J. ; O'Day, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><description>This study addressed the hypothesis that, after the systematic elimination of nonfunctioning options, four-option test items would perform as well as five-option test items having one or more dysfunctional distracters. The study consisted of two investigations involving an examination administered to 700 candidates for certification in a medical specialty. In the first investigation, it was found that content experts exhibited a high degree of accuracy in identifying nonfunctioning options where the criterion was empirical item analysis data. The second phase of the study compared five-option versions of multiple-choice items with four-option versions in which a nonfunctioning option had been removed. Results indicated that (a) removal of a nonfunctioning option resulted in a slight, non significant overall increase in item difficulty and no significant differences in item discrimination, (b) a test consisting of items with a nonfunctioning option removed was nearly equally reliable compared with a set of the same items in a five-option format, and (c) the use of empirical or judgmental methods of identifying nonfunctioning options was not related to changes in item performance. Implications, cautions, and suggestions for future research are provided.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-1644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3888</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0013164494054004002</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Certification ; Difficulty Level ; Distractors (Tests) ; Licensing Examinations (Professions) ; Medical Specialty Boards ; Multiple Choice Tests ; Physicians ; Social research ; Test Construction ; Test Items ; Tests</subject><ispartof>Educational and psychological measurement, 1994-12, Vol.54 (4), p.861-872</ispartof><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Winter 1994</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c296t-a4f308aeb4de5be4d7650122a10edc55e88c36f444dbc3cb80966f4c12606d6a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c296t-a4f308aeb4de5be4d7650122a10edc55e88c36f444dbc3cb80966f4c12606d6a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013164494054004002$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013164494054004002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21818,27868,27923,27924,43620,43621</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ498471$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cizek, Gregory J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Day, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><title>Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items</title><title>Educational and psychological measurement</title><description>This study addressed the hypothesis that, after the systematic elimination of nonfunctioning options, four-option test items would perform as well as five-option test items having one or more dysfunctional distracters. The study consisted of two investigations involving an examination administered to 700 candidates for certification in a medical specialty. In the first investigation, it was found that content experts exhibited a high degree of accuracy in identifying nonfunctioning options where the criterion was empirical item analysis data. The second phase of the study compared five-option versions of multiple-choice items with four-option versions in which a nonfunctioning option had been removed. Results indicated that (a) removal of a nonfunctioning option resulted in a slight, non significant overall increase in item difficulty and no significant differences in item discrimination, (b) a test consisting of items with a nonfunctioning option removed was nearly equally reliable compared with a set of the same items in a five-option format, and (c) the use of empirical or judgmental methods of identifying nonfunctioning options was not related to changes in item performance. Implications, cautions, and suggestions for future research are provided.</description><subject>Certification</subject><subject>Difficulty Level</subject><subject>Distractors (Tests)</subject><subject>Licensing Examinations (Professions)</subject><subject>Medical Specialty Boards</subject><subject>Multiple Choice Tests</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Social research</subject><subject>Test Construction</subject><subject>Test Items</subject><subject>Tests</subject><issn>0013-1644</issn><issn>1552-3888</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kF9LwzAUxYMoOKefQB-CPldv_i59lOF0srmX-VzSNN0ytrYmreC3N6UiPqiXwM3l_s49cBC6JHBLyGRyB0AYkZynHAQHiI8eoRERgiZMKXWMRj2R9MgpOgthB7E4ISO0nHW-3VqP59W7Da3b6NbVFa5L_FJXZVeZfnTVBq-a_hewq_Cy27eu2dtkuq2dsXgdhXje2kM4Ryel3gd78dXH6HX2sJ4-JYvV43x6v0gMTWWbaF4yUNrmvLAit7yYSAGEUk3AFkYIq5RhsuScF7lhJleQyjgaQiXIQmo2RtfD3cbXb120z3Z156tomVFKBO8DiNDNXxChKUSMsjRSbKCMr0Pwtswa7w7af2QEsj7c7Jdwo-pqUFnvzLfi4Zmnik9IXMOwDnpjf9j-c_ETVQ2B1A</recordid><startdate>19941201</startdate><enddate>19941201</enddate><creator>Cizek, Gregory J.</creator><creator>O'Day, Denis M.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Educational and Psychological Measurement, etc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19941201</creationdate><title>Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items</title><author>Cizek, Gregory J. ; O'Day, Denis M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c296t-a4f308aeb4de5be4d7650122a10edc55e88c36f444dbc3cb80966f4c12606d6a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Certification</topic><topic>Difficulty Level</topic><topic>Distractors (Tests)</topic><topic>Licensing Examinations (Professions)</topic><topic>Medical Specialty Boards</topic><topic>Multiple Choice Tests</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Social research</topic><topic>Test Construction</topic><topic>Test Items</topic><topic>Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cizek, Gregory J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Day, Denis M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cizek, Gregory J.</au><au>O'Day, Denis M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ498471</ericid><atitle>Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items</atitle><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle><date>1994-12-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>861</spage><epage>872</epage><pages>861-872</pages><issn>0013-1644</issn><eissn>1552-3888</eissn><abstract>This study addressed the hypothesis that, after the systematic elimination of nonfunctioning options, four-option test items would perform as well as five-option test items having one or more dysfunctional distracters. The study consisted of two investigations involving an examination administered to 700 candidates for certification in a medical specialty. In the first investigation, it was found that content experts exhibited a high degree of accuracy in identifying nonfunctioning options where the criterion was empirical item analysis data. The second phase of the study compared five-option versions of multiple-choice items with four-option versions in which a nonfunctioning option had been removed. Results indicated that (a) removal of a nonfunctioning option resulted in a slight, non significant overall increase in item difficulty and no significant differences in item discrimination, (b) a test consisting of items with a nonfunctioning option removed was nearly equally reliable compared with a set of the same items in a five-option format, and (c) the use of empirical or judgmental methods of identifying nonfunctioning options was not related to changes in item performance. Implications, cautions, and suggestions for future research are provided.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0013164494054004002</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0013-1644 |
| ispartof | Educational and psychological measurement, 1994-12, Vol.54 (4), p.861-872 |
| issn | 0013-1644 1552-3888 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_221544002 |
| source | Periodicals Index Online; SAGE Complete A-Z List |
| subjects | Certification Difficulty Level Distractors (Tests) Licensing Examinations (Professions) Medical Specialty Boards Multiple Choice Tests Physicians Social research Test Construction Test Items Tests |
| title | Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T23%3A55%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Further%20Investigation%20of%20Nonfunctioning%20Options%20in%20Multiple-Choice%20Test%20Items&rft.jtitle=Educational%20and%20psychological%20measurement&rft.au=Cizek,%20Gregory%20J.&rft.date=1994-12-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=861&rft.epage=872&rft.pages=861-872&rft.issn=0013-1644&rft.eissn=1552-3888&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0013164494054004002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E5834508%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1290154239&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ498471&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0013164494054004002&rfr_iscdi=true |