Journal Article10.3102/00346543043002181
The Correction for Guessing
James J. Diamond,William Evans +1 more
116
TL;DR: A number of recent articles in confidence weighting (Shuford, Albert, & Massengill, 1966; Gannon & Sannito, 1968) and in Guttman choice weighting are evidence of this trend as discussed by the authors.
read more
Abstract: With the increased use and availability of electronic computers, interest has been regenerated in item and choice weighting. A number of recent articles in confidence weighting (Shuford, Albert, & Massengill, 1966; Gannon & Sannito, 1968) and in Guttman choice weighting (Davis & Fifer, 1959; Stanley & Wang, 1968; Sabers & White, l969;Hendrickson, 1971) are evidence of this trend. In the days prior to computers, if any weighting of choices was done, it was typically the trichotomous system we know as the correction for guessing. The correction is of course familiar to many readers, but to clarify notation, what we mean by the correction for guessing is the use of the formula
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
VLAT : Development of a Visualization Literacy Assessment Test
TL;DR: This work systematically developed a visualization literacy assessment test (VLAT), especially for non-expert users in data visualization, by following the established procedure of test development in Psychological and Educational Measurement.
250
An experiment on the measurement of political knowledge in surveys
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the results of an experimental study which calls into question the wisdom of this approach and conclude that opinion researchers should be cautious about adopting Mondak's recommendations for the design of political knowledge items in surveys.
107
The effect of a ‘don't know’ option on test scores: number‐right and formula scoring compared
TL;DR: In multiple‐choice tests using a `don't‐know' option the number of correct minus incorrect answers was used as the test score (formula scoring) in order to reduce the measurement error resulting from random guessing.
100
Determination of Optional Cutting Scores in Criterion - Referenced Measurement,
TL;DR: In this paper, an empirical methodology is proposed for determining optimal cutting scores for short-fixed-length criterion-referenced tests, where the optimal cutting score is selected according to the estimated probabilities of correct and incorrect mastery-nonmastery decisions.
95
Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes?
TL;DR: This paper investigated psychology students' performance on, and experiences of, multiple-choice examinations with and without correction for guessing, and found that students scored higher, and left fewer questions unanswered, when there was no corrections for guessing.
References
Admissible probability measurement procedures.
TL;DR: In this case, it is shown that a certain minor modification of a scoring system with the reproducing property yields the desired admissible probability measurement procedure.
294