Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harasym, P.H.
Right arrow Articles by Lorscheider, F.L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Harasym, P.H.
Right arrow Articles by Lorscheider, F.L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Evaluating Student Multiple-Choice Responses

Effects of Coded and Free Formats

P.H. Harasym

Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary

D.A. Norris

Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary

F.L. Lorscheider

Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary

The effects of coded (type K) and free (type X) formats on student responses to identical multiple-choice items were com pared. Two subtests (A and B) each of 20 multiple-response items were emplo ved The items of the two subtests were placed in both K and X response formats pro ducing two examinations (i.e., exam I subtest A in type K format and subtest B in type X format; exam II. subtest A in type X format and subtest B in type K format) which were randomly distributed to 155 premedical students enrolled in an advanced human physiology course. Analyses of student performance led to four observanons. (1) the type K items significantly elevated student achievement scores due to a cueing effect inherent in the format, (2) the "poorer" students' scores were elevated more than the "better" students' scores, as evidence by a signifi cant negative relationship between the degree of cueing and examinee perfor mance; (3) the item format and scoring system (dichotomous or semicontinuous scales) affected the mean and variance of examinee scores; (4) the reliability (alpha coefficient) of items in the type X format tended to be statistically higher than that of items in the type K format. It was con cluded that an examination constructed in the type X format is a superior evalua tion instrument when compared to its parallel type K format

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 3, No. 1, 63-84 (1980)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878000300104
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
F.-J. Tsai and H. K. Suen
A Brief Report on a Comparison of Six Scoring Methods for Multiple True-False Items
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1993; 53(2): 399 - 404.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
M. A. Albanese
Multiple-Choice Items with Combinations of Correct Responses: A Further Look at the Type K Format
Eval Health Prof, June 1, 1982; 5(2): 218 - 228.
[Abstract] [PDF]