Six scoring methods for assigning weights to right or wrong responses according to various instructions given to test takers are analyzed with respect to expected change scores and the effect of various levels of information and misinformation. Three of the methods provide feedback to the test taker. (Author/CTM)

Multilinear formula scoring (MFS) is reviewed, with emphasis on estimating option characteristic curves (OCSs). MFS was used to estimate OCSs for the arithmetic reasoning subtest of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery for 2,978 examinees. A second analysis obtained OCSs for simulated data. The use of MFS is discussed. (SLD)

Simulation techniques were used to generate conventional test responses and track the proportion of alternatives examinees could classify independently before and after taking the test. Finite-state scores were compared with these actual values and with number-correct and formula scores. Finite-state scores proved useful. (TJH)

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)