Option weighting is an alternative to increasing test length as a means of improving the reliability of a test. The effects on test reliability of option weighting procedures were compared in two empirical studies using four independent sets of items. Biserial weights were found to be superior. (Author/CTM)

The most consistently used scoring system for the rod-and-frame task has been the total number of degrees in error from the true vertical. Since a logical case can be made for at least four alternative scoring systems, a thorough comparison of all five systems was performed. (Author/CTM)

The answer-until-correct (AUC) procedure requires that examinees respond to a multi-choice item until they answer it correctly. Using a modified version of Horst's model for examinee behavior, this paper compares the effect of guessing on item reliability for the AUC procedure and the zero-one scoring procedure. (Author/CTM)

Binary, probability, and ordinal scoring procedures for multiple-choice items were examined. In two situations, it was found that both the probability and ordinal scoring systems were more reliable than the binary scoring method. (Author/CTM)

A set of Tests of Scientific Thinking were developed for possible use as criterion measures in research on creativity. Scores on the tests describe both quality and quantity of ideas produced in formulating hypotheses, evaluating proposals, solving methodological problems, and devising methods for measuring constructs. (Author/CTM)

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. It was concluded that option weighting offered limited, if any, improvement over unit weighting. (Author/CTM)