NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 8 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Haladyna, Thomas M.; Downing, Steven M. – Applied Measurement in Education, 1989
Results of 96 theoretical/empirical studies were reviewed to see if they support a taxonomy of 43 rules for writing multiple-choice test items. The taxonomy is the result of an analysis of 46 textbooks dealing with multiple-choice item writing. For nearly half of the rules, no research was found. (SLD)
Descriptors: Classification, Literature Reviews, Multiple Choice Tests, Test Construction
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Haladyna, Thomas M.; Downing, Steven M.; Rodriguez, Michael C. – Applied Measurement in Education, 2002
Validated a taxonomy of 31 multiple-choice item-writing guidelines through a logical process that included reviewing 27 textbooks on educational testing and the results of 27 studies and reviews published since 1990. Presents the taxonomy, which is intended for classroom assessment. (SLD)
Descriptors: Classification, Literature Reviews, Multiple Choice Tests, Student Evaluation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Haladyna, Thomas M.; Downing, Steven M. – Applied Measurement in Education, 1989
A taxonomy of 43 rules for writing multiple-choice test items is presented, based on a consensus of 46 textbooks. These guidelines are presented as complete and authoritative, with solid consensus apparent for 33 of the rules. Four rules lack consensus, and 5 rules were cited fewer than 10 times. (SLD)
Descriptors: Classification, Interrater Reliability, Multiple Choice Tests, Objective Tests
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Downing, Steven M. – Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1992
Research on true-false (TF), multiple-choice, and alternate-choice (AC) tests is reviewed, discussing strengths, weaknesses, and the usefulness in classroom and large-scale testing of each. Recommendations are made for improving use of AC items to overcome some of the problems associated with TF items. (SLD)
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Educational Research, Multiple Choice Tests, Objective Tests
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Downing, Steven M. – Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2005
The purpose of this research was to study the effects of violations of standard multiple-choice item writing principles on test characteristics, student scores, and pass-fail outcomes. Four basic science examinations, administered to year-one and year-two medical students, were randomly selected for study. Test items were classified as either…
Descriptors: Medical Education, Medical Students, Test Items, Test Format
Haladyna, Thomas M.; Downing, Steven M. – 1988
The proposition that the optimal number of options in a multiple choice test item is three was examined. The concept of functional distractor, a plausible wrong answer that is negatively discriminating when total test performance is the criterion, is discussed. Three distinct groups of achievers (high, middle, and low) on a national standardized…
Descriptors: Achievement Tests, Item Analysis, Multiple Choice Tests, Physicians
Haladyna, Thomas M.; Downing, Steven M. – 1985
In this paper 45 item-writing rules for multiple-choice tests presented in textbooks on educational measurement in a previous study are identified. The current study presents a quantitative review of the literature with respect to the empirical and theoretical evaluation of these principles of item-writing. Fifty-six studies that addressed at…
Descriptors: Educational Research, Elementary Secondary Education, Item Analysis, Multiple Choice Tests
PDF pending restoration PDF pending restoration
Downing, Steven M.; Maatsch, Jack L. – 1978
To test the effect of clinically relevant multiple-choice item content on the validity of statistical discriminations of physicians' clinical competence, data were collected from a field test of the Emergency Medicine Examination, test items for the certification of specialists in emergency medicine. Two 91-item multiple-choice subscales were…
Descriptors: Certification, Clinical Experience, Competence, Difficulty Level