This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Trevisan, M. S. Articles by Michael, W. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Effects of the Number of Options per Item and Student Ability on Test Validity and Reliability

University of Washington

Gilbert Sax

University of Washington

William B. Michael

University of Southern California

Reliability and validity of multiple-choice examinations were computed as a function of the number of options per item and student ability for junior class parochial high school students administered the verbal section of the Washington Pre-College Test Battery. The least discriminating options were deleted to create 3- and 4-option test formats from the original 5-option item test. Students were placed into ability groups by using noncontiguous grade point average (GPA) cutoffs. The GPAs were the criteria for the validity coefficients. Significant differences (p c 0.05) were found between reliability coefficients for low ability students. The optimum number of options was three when the ability groups were combined. None of the validity coefficients followed the hypothesized trend. These results are part of the mounting evidence that suggests the efficacy of the 3-option item. An explanation is provided.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 51, No. 4, 829-837 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/001316449105100404


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				G. J. Cizek, K. L. Robinson, and D. M. O'Day Nonfunctioning Options: A Closer Look Educational and Psychological Measurement, August 1, 1998; 58(4): 605 - 611. [Abstract]

				G. J. Cizek and D. M. O'Day Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1994; 54(4): 861 - 872. [Abstract]

				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]

				G. R. Hancock, K. W. Thiede, G. Sax, and W. B. Michael Reliability of Comparably Wriften Two-Option Multiple-Choice and True-False Test Items Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1993; 53(3): 651 - 660. [Abstract]

				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]

				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]