Test Takers’ Response Tendencies in Alternative Item Formats: A Cognitive Science Approach

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2020.1804350
J. Moon, M. Keehner, Irvin R. Katz
{"title":"Test Takers’ Response Tendencies in Alternative Item Formats: A Cognitive Science Approach","authors":"J. Moon, M. Keehner, Irvin R. Katz","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2020.1804350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We investigated how item formats influence test takers’ response tendencies under uncertainty. Adult participants solved content-equivalent math items in three formats: multiple-selection multiple-choice, grid with forced-choice (true-false) options, and grid with non-forced-choice options. Participants showed a greater tendency to commit (rather than omit) responses in the grid items, in both forced-choice and non-forced-choice types, compared to the multiple-selection multiple-choice items. These findings relate to the theoretical framework of affordances, which predicts that the design of interactive artifacts can shape one’s perception of action opportunities. The results of a signal detection analysis provided additional evidence that the item formats affected participants’ response bias. The current research suggests that cognitive science principles could provide an in-depth understanding of test takers’ cognition in new item formats.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"25 1","pages":"236 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804350","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT We investigated how item formats influence test takers’ response tendencies under uncertainty. Adult participants solved content-equivalent math items in three formats: multiple-selection multiple-choice, grid with forced-choice (true-false) options, and grid with non-forced-choice options. Participants showed a greater tendency to commit (rather than omit) responses in the grid items, in both forced-choice and non-forced-choice types, compared to the multiple-selection multiple-choice items. These findings relate to the theoretical framework of affordances, which predicts that the design of interactive artifacts can shape one’s perception of action opportunities. The results of a signal detection analysis provided additional evidence that the item formats affected participants’ response bias. The current research suggests that cognitive science principles could provide an in-depth understanding of test takers’ cognition in new item formats.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
另类题目形式下考生的反应倾向:一种认知科学方法
摘要:我们研究了在不确定性条件下,项目格式如何影响考生的反应倾向。成年参与者以三种形式解决了内容等效的数学项目:多选多项选择题、带强迫选择(真-假)选项的网格和带非强迫选择选项的网格。与多项选择多项相比,参与者在强迫选择和非强迫选择类型的网格项目中表现出更倾向于提交(而不是省略)回答。这些发现与可供性的理论框架有关,该框架预测交互工件的设计可以塑造一个人对行动机会的感知。信号检测分析的结果提供了额外的证据,证明项目格式影响了参与者的反应偏差。目前的研究表明,认知科学原理可以深入了解考生对新项目格式的认知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
期刊最新文献
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children Who Use AAE: Insights from Explanatory IRT and Error Analysis Raising the Bar: How Revising an English Language Proficiency Assessment for Initial English Learner Classification Affects Students’ Later Academic Achievements Monitoring Rater Quality in Observational Systems: Issues Due to Unreliable Estimates of Rater Quality Improving the Precision of Classroom Observation Scores Using a Multi-Rater and Multi-Timepoint Item Response Theory Model High Stakes Assessments in Primary Schools and Teachers’ Anxiety About Work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1