Toward Evidence-Based Guidelines on Answer Keys' Placement in Multiple-Choice Tests: A Simulation Study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Toward Evidence-Based Guidelines on Answer Keys' Placement in Multiple-Choice Tests: A Simulation Study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ortega, Gabriel (AUTHOR), Lions, Séverin (AUTHOR), Dartnell, Pablo (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Measurement in Education. Jul-Dec2025, Vol. 38 Issue 3/4, p284-303. 20p. |
| Subjects: | Test design, Simulation methods & models, Test methods, Test-taking skills, Test validity, Educational evaluation, Multiple choice examinations |
| Abstract: | Multiple-choice is the most common test format in educational assessment. It offers many advantages but has one shortcoming: examinees might earn extra points through strategic guessing. Item-writing guidelines on response option placement have been formulated to prevent examinees from strategically using the answer keys' distribution as clues. However, several guidelines co-exist in literature, untested by mathematical methods. In this study, the answer keys' distributions that may emerge when implementing the most common guidelines on answer keys' placement (balancing and randomization) were modeled, and the effectiveness of using well-known option-position-based response strategies ("when in doubt, choose C"; balanced guessing) was analyzed through a simulation study. Gains obtained in the different scenarios were compared for tests with different lengths and examinees with different achievement levels. Results show that randomization is the only guideline not associated with potential test results validity or equity issues. A set of recommendations for test developers is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Measurement in Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Multiple-choice is the most common test format in educational assessment. It offers many advantages but has one shortcoming: examinees might earn extra points through strategic guessing. Item-writing guidelines on response option placement have been formulated to prevent examinees from strategically using the answer keys' distribution as clues. However, several guidelines co-exist in literature, untested by mathematical methods. In this study, the answer keys' distributions that may emerge when implementing the most common guidelines on answer keys' placement (balancing and randomization) were modeled, and the effectiveness of using well-known option-position-based response strategies ("when in doubt, choose C"; balanced guessing) was analyzed through a simulation study. Gains obtained in the different scenarios were compared for tests with different lengths and examinees with different achievement levels. Results show that randomization is the only guideline not associated with potential test results validity or equity issues. A set of recommendations for test developers is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 08957347 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/08957347.2025.2608017 |
