Skip to main content
Log in

Predicting Rights-Only Score Distributions from Data Collected Under Formula Score Instructions

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Under a formula score instruction (FSI), test takers omit items. If students are encouraged to answer every item (under a rights-only scoring instruction, ROI), the score distribution will be different. In this paper, we formulate a simple statistical model to predict the score ROI distribution using the FSI data. Estimation error is also provided. In addition, a preliminary investigation of the probability of guessing correctly on omitted items and its sensitivity is presented in the paper. Based on the data used in this paper, the probability of guessing correctly may be close or slightly greater than the chance score.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albano, A. (2014). Package ‘equate’. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/equate/equate

  • Angoff, W. H., & Schrader, W. B. (1984). A study of hypotheses basic to the use of rights and formula scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, L. (1980). A test of Lord’s assumption regarding examinee guessing behavior on multiple-choice tests using elementary school students. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1993). To guess or not to guess: A decision-theoretic view of formula scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • College Board. (2015). What new scoring means to you. Retrieved from https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/new-scores-meaning-for-students

  • Durrett, R. (1995). Probability: Theory and examples (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, M. P., & Gardeazabal, J. (2010). Optimal correction for guessing in multiple-choice tests. Journal of Mathematical psychology, 54, 415–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. (2007). No special \(K!\) A signal detection framework for the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N. J. (2006). Linking and equating. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1983). Maximum likelihood estimation of item response parameters when some responses are omitted. Psychometrika, 48, 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F., & Novick, M. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author appreciates the discussions with Shelby Haberman, Neil Dorans, and Michael Walker, and the editorial help from Neil Dorans and Christine Mills. The author is also grateful to Marna Golub-Smith, J. R. Lockwood, Tim Moses, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and diligent review of the manuscript. Any opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily of Educational Testing Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongwen Guo.

Appendices

Appendix

Verification of the assumption in the central limit theorem (CLT) for Proposition 2

In Proposition 2, we used Lyapunov’s theorem (Durrett, 1995).

Theorem 2

Let \(\alpha _n=\{\mathrm{var (S_n)}\}^{1/2}\), where \(S_n=\sum _{i=1}^nX_i\). If there is a \(\delta >0\) so that

$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \alpha _n^{-(2+\delta )}\sum _{i=1}^n E(|X_i-EX_i|^{2+\delta })=0, \end{aligned}$$
(5)

then \((S_n-ES_n)/\alpha _n\) converges to a standard normal distribution.

Here we show that the requirement holds in Proposition 2. In Proposition 2, for the group \(\{ R=r\}\), \(X_{r,i}\) is a Bernoulli random variable with a success rate of \(p_{r,i}\) for an examinee i. We omit the subscript r for simplicity. Since there are limited options for each item, the success rate \(1>c_1\ge p_i\ge c_2>0\) holds for some constants \(c_1\) and \(c_2\). For any \(\delta >0\), \(E(|X_i-EX_i|^{2+\delta })= q_i^{2+\delta }p_i+p_i^{2+\delta }q_i\), where \(q_i=1-p_i\). Hence,

$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \alpha _n^{-(2+\delta )}\sum _{i=1}^n E\big (|X_i-EX_i|^{2+\delta }\big )= & {} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \alpha _n^{-(2+\delta )}\sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\bigg (q_i^{1+\delta }+p_i^{1+\delta }\bigg )\\= & {} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \left( \sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\right) ^{-(1+\delta /2)}\sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\bigg (q_i^{1+\delta }+p_i^{1+\delta }\bigg )\\< & {} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \left( \sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\right) ^{-(1+\delta /2)}\sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i(p_i+q_i) \\= & {} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty } \left( \sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\right) ^{-(1+\delta /2)}\sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i \\= & {} \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\left( \sum _{i=1}^n p_iq_i\right) ^{-\delta /2} \le \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }(nc)^{-\delta /2}\rightarrow 0, \end{aligned}$$

where in the last inequality we use the fact that \(p_i\ge c_2\) and \(q_i\ge 1-c_1>0\). Therefore, (5) in Lyapunov’s CLT holds.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, H. Predicting Rights-Only Score Distributions from Data Collected Under Formula Score Instructions. Psychometrika 82, 1–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9550-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9550-9

Keywords

Navigation