Abstract
Multiple-choice (MC) format is the most widely used format in objective testing. The “select all the choices that are true” items, also called multiple-multiple-choice (MMC) items, is a variation of the MC format, which gives no instructions about how many correct choices may be selected. Although many studies have been developed and various scoring methods for MMC items have been compared, the results have often been inconsistent. Arai and Miyano (Bull Data Anal Japan Classif Soc 6:101–112, 2017) proposed new scoring methods and compared their scoring features by conducting numerical simulations of a few MMC item patterns. In this study, we conducted numerical simulations of all other plausible MMC item patterns to examine the relationships between examinees’ abilities (true scores) and scores given by scoring methods. We illustrated the effects of the total number of choices and correct choices for each scoring.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18K03085.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Albanese, M. A., & Sabers, D. L. (1988). Multiple true-false items: A study of interitem correlations, scoring alternatives, and reliability estimation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(2), 111–123.
Arai, S., & Miyano, H. (2017). Scoring method for “Select All the Choices That Are True” items. Bulletin of Data Analysis of Japanese Classification Society, 6(1), 101–112(in Japanese).
Cronbach, L. J. (1941). An experimental comparison of the multiple true-false and multiple multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32(7), 533.
Domnich, A., Panatto, D., Arata, L., Bevilacqua, I., Apprato, L., Gasparini, R., et al. (2015). Impact of different scoring algorithms applied to multiple-mark survey items on outcome assessment: An in-field study on health-related knowledge. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 56(4), E162.
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayekawa, S. (2018, November 15). Lazy R packages. Retrieved from http://mayekawa.in.coocan.jp/Rpackages.html.
Ripkey, D. R., Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1996). A “new” item format for assessing aspects of clinical competence. Academic Medicine, 71(10), S34–6.
Sokal, R. R., & Sneath, P. H. A.(1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Tsai, F. J., & Suen, H. K. (1993). A brief report on a comparison of six scoring methods for multiple true-false items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 399–404.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arai, S., Miyano, H. (2019). Simulation Study of Scoring Methods for Various Multiple-Multiple-Choice Items. In: Wiberg, M., Culpepper, S., Janssen, R., González, J., Molenaar, D. (eds) Quantitative Psychology. IMPS IMPS 2017 2018. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 265. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01309-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01310-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)