多项选择题中猜测错误的修正模型

E. A. Hansen, F. Schmidt, J. C. Hansen
{"title":"多项选择题中猜测错误的修正模型","authors":"E. A. Hansen, F. Schmidt, J. C. Hansen","doi":"10.1145/1102982.1102986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multiple-choice tests are used widely because of obvious practical advantages, but inherent in them is the problem of dealing with the effects of guessing. The only widely used model for predicting effects of guessing is based on the primary assumption that, the probability of making a correct response on each test item is either 1.0 or the reciprocal of the number of available choices. The assumption that the subject either makes the correct response on each trial or guesses blindly is clearly too restrictive. Nunnally in [1] relates that because in most educational tests there is some opportunity for \"narrowing\" alternatives before guessing the standard correction for guessing tends to be an underestimate of the actual effects of guessing. The model proposed in this paper attempts to correct for this.","PeriodicalId":129356,"journal":{"name":"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1975-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A model for the correction for guessing on multiple-choice tests\",\"authors\":\"E. A. Hansen, F. Schmidt, J. C. Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1102982.1102986\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multiple-choice tests are used widely because of obvious practical advantages, but inherent in them is the problem of dealing with the effects of guessing. The only widely used model for predicting effects of guessing is based on the primary assumption that, the probability of making a correct response on each test item is either 1.0 or the reciprocal of the number of available choices. The assumption that the subject either makes the correct response on each trial or guesses blindly is clearly too restrictive. Nunnally in [1] relates that because in most educational tests there is some opportunity for \\\"narrowing\\\" alternatives before guessing the standard correction for guessing tends to be an underestimate of the actual effects of guessing. The model proposed in this paper attempts to correct for this.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1975-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1102982.1102986\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1102982.1102986","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

多项选择测验因其明显的实际优势而被广泛使用,但其固有的问题是如何处理猜测的影响。唯一广泛使用的预测猜测效果的模型是基于对每个测试项目做出正确回答的概率是1.0或可用选项数量的倒数这一基本假设。假设受试者在每次试验中要么做出正确的反应,要么盲目猜测,显然过于严格。Nunnally在[1]中提到,因为在大多数教育测试中,在猜测之前有一些“缩小”选项的机会,猜测的标准校正往往低估了猜测的实际效果。本文提出的模型试图纠正这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A model for the correction for guessing on multiple-choice tests
Multiple-choice tests are used widely because of obvious practical advantages, but inherent in them is the problem of dealing with the effects of guessing. The only widely used model for predicting effects of guessing is based on the primary assumption that, the probability of making a correct response on each test item is either 1.0 or the reciprocal of the number of available choices. The assumption that the subject either makes the correct response on each trial or guesses blindly is clearly too restrictive. Nunnally in [1] relates that because in most educational tests there is some opportunity for "narrowing" alternatives before guessing the standard correction for guessing tends to be an underestimate of the actual effects of guessing. The model proposed in this paper attempts to correct for this.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using a computerized conferencing system as a laboratory tool On the need for humane rationing of interactive service A contribution towards the measurement of user behavior: an analysis of SPSS-use and -users On-line manipulation of small area demographic data: AmericanProfile sm Review of "SCSS A User's Guide to the SCSS Conversational System, by Norman Nie, C. Hadlai Hull, Mark N. Franklin, Jean G. Jenkins, Keith J. Sours, Marija J. Norusis, and Viann Beadle", McGraw Hill Book Company, 1980
×
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