A Brief Report on a Comparison of Six Scoring Methods for Multiple True-False Items
A Brief Report on a Comparison of Six Scoring Methods for Multiple True-False Items
复制标题
六种多真假题评分方法比较简报
DOI：
10.1177/0013164493053002008
复制
发表时间：
1993
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
H. Suen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fu;H. Suen
本研究比较了六种多项真-假题评分方法的信度、难度和区分度。结果发现，在可靠性和歧视值的差异没有统计学意义。在对评分指标进行调整后，发现多个真-假、猜测校正和让-省略方法产生更高的项目平均值（即，更容易），而多重响应方法产生最低的项目平均值。本研究的结果表明，对于常模参考分数解释，没有足够的证据支持六种方法中的任何一种在心理测量学上优于其他方法。上级。然而，对于标准参照的分数解释，需要考虑评分方法对分数解释和通过分数的确定的影响。
Six methods of scoring multiple true-false items were compared in terms of the reliabilities, difficulties, and discrimination. It was found that the differences in reliabilities and discrimination values were not statistically significant. After adjustments for scoring metrics were made, the multiple true-false, the correction-for-guessing, and the let-omit method were found to yield higher item means (i.e., easier), whereas the multiple response method yielded the lowest item mean. Results of this study suggest that, for norm-referenced score interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to support any one of the six methods as superior to others psychometrically. For criterion-referenced score interpretations, however, the effects of the scoring method on score interpretation and the determination of passing scores need to be taken into consideration.