Descriptor
| Multiple Choice Tests | 2 |
| Test Construction | 2 |
| Test Format | 2 |
| Comparative Analysis | 1 |
| Cues | 1 |
| Difficulty Level | 1 |
| Educational Research | 1 |
| Objective Tests | 1 |
| Responses | 1 |
| Test Items | 1 |
| Test Use | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Educational Measurement:… | 2 |
Publication Type
| Information Analyses | 2 |
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Speeches/Meeting Papers | 2 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedAlbanese, Mark A. – Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1993
A comprehensive review is given of evidence, with a bearing on the recommendation to avoid use of complex multiple choice (CMC) items. Avoiding Type K items (four primary responses and five secondary choices) seems warranted, but evidence against CMC in general is less clear. (SLD)
Descriptors: Cues, Difficulty Level, Multiple Choice Tests, Responses
Peer reviewedDowning, 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
