Educational and Psychological Measurement

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

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

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Owen, S. V.
Right arrow Articles by Froman, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47, No. 2, 513-522 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164487472027

What's Wrong with Three-Option Multiple Choice Items?

Steven V. Owen

Unversity of Connecticut

Robin D. Froman

University of Hartford

Despite evidence supporting 3-option items, text authors and practitioners continue to advocate the use of four or five options. We designed an experiment to test further the efficacy of 3-option achievement items. Parallel tests of 3- and 5-option items were built and distributed randomly to college students. Results showed no differences in mean item difficulty, mean discrimination, or total test score, but a substantial reduction in time spent on 3-option items. The straightforward implication is that content validity may be boosted by writing additional 3-option items to tap more content.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. Shizuka, O. Takeuchi, T. Yashima, and K. Yoshizawa
A comparison of three- and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan
Language Testing, January 1, 2006; 23(1): 35 - 57.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
M. S. Trevisan, G. Sax, and W. B. Michael
Estimating the Optimum Number of Options Per Item Using an Incremental Option Paradigm
Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1994; 54(1): 86 - 91.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
T. M. Haladyna and S. M. Downing
How Many Options is Enough for a Multiple-Choice Test Item?
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1993; 53(4): 999 - 1010.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. E. Landrum, J. R. Cashin, and K. S. Theis
More Evidence in Favor of Three-Option Multiple-Choice Tests
Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1993; 53(3): 771 - 778.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
K. D. Crehan, T. M. Haladyna, and B. W. Brewer
Use of an Inclusive Option and the Optimal Number of Options for Multiple-Choice Items
Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1993; 53(1): 241 - 247.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
M. S. Trevisan, G. Sax, and W. B. Michael
The Effects of the Number of Options per Item and Student Ability on Test Validity and Reliability
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1991; 51(4): 829 - 837.
[Abstract]