Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haladyna, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Downing, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
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?

How Many Options is Enough for a Multiple-Choice Test Item?

Thomas M. Haladyna

Arizona State University West

Steven M. Downing

National Board of Medical Examiners

Textbook writers often recommend four or five options per multiple-choice item, and most, if not all, testing programs in the United States also employ four or five options. Recent reviews of research on the desirable number of options for a multiple-choice test item reveal that three options may be suitable for most ability and achievement tests. A study of the frequency of acceptably performing distractors is reported. Results from three different testing programs support the conclusion that test items seldom contain more than three useful options. Consequently, testing program personnel and classroom teachers may be better served by using 2-or 3-option items instead of the typically recommended 4- or 5-option items.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53, No. 4, 999-1010 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164493053004013
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
 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
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]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
P. H. Harasym, E. J. Leong, C. Violato, R. Brant, and F. L. Lorscheider
Cuing Effect of "All of the above" on the Reliability and Validity of Multiple-Choice Test Items
Eval Health Prof, March 1, 1998; 21(1): 120 - 133.
[Abstract] [PDF]