A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories




Indir 347.16 Kb.
TitleA Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories
Page7/7
Date conversion09.01.2013
Size347.16 Kb.
TypeBelgeleme
Sourcehttp://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol9say1/v9s1m14.doc
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

KAYNAKÇA


Adams, R.J. (1988). Applying the partial credit model to educational diagnosis. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 347-361.

Akkuş, O. (2000). Çoktan seçmeli test maddelerini puanlamada, seçenekleri farklı biçimlerde ağırlıklandırmanın madde ve test istatistiklerine olan etkisinin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Ark, L.A. (2001). Relationships and properties of polytomous Item Response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 273-282.

Backhoff, E.E., Tirado, F.S., & Larrazolo, N.R. (2001). Differential weighting of items to improve university admission test validity. Electronic Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 21-31.

Baykul, Y. (2000). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik Test teorisi ve uygulaması. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları.

Bayuk, R.J. (1973). The effects of choice weights and item weights on the reliability and predictive validity of aptitude-type tests [Abstract]. ERIC Digest, Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED078061).

Ben-Simon, A., Budescu, D.V. & Nevo, B. (1997). A comparative study of measures of partial knowledge in multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 65-88.

Bock, R.D. (1997). The nominal categories model (In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton, Eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (p.33-49), New York Inc.: Springer-Verlag.

Coombs, C.H., Milholland, J.E. & Womer, F.B. (1956). The assessment of partial knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 13-37.

Corey, S.M. (1930). The effect of weighting exercises in a new-type examination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 383-385.

Crehan K.D. & Haladyna T.M. (1994). A comparison of three linear polytomous scoring methods. ERIC Digest, Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED377246).

Crocker, L. & Algina J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc.

Cross, L.H. & Frary, R.B. (1978). Empirical choice weighting under “guess” and “do not guess” directions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 613-620.

Cross, L.H., Ross, F.K. & Geller, E.S. (1980). Using choice-weighted scoring of multiple-choice tests for determination of grades in college courses. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 296-301.

Davis, F.B. & Fifer, G. (1959). The effect on test reliability and validity of scoring aptitude and achievement tests with weights for every choice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19, 159-170.

De Ayala, R.J. (1993). An introduction to polytomous Item Response theory models. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 3, 172-189.

De Ayala, R.J., Dodd, B.G. & Koch, W.R. (1992). A comparison of the partial credit and graded response models in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5(1), 17-34.

Dodd, B.G. (1984). Attitude scaling: A comparison of the graded response and partial credit latent trait models (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2074A.

Dodd, B.G. & Koch, W.R. (1987). Effects of variations in item stop values on item and test information in the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 371-384.

Downey, R.G. (1979). Item-option weighting of achievement tests: Comparative study of methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 453-461.

Drasgow, F., Levine, M.V., Tsien, S., Williams, B. & Mead, A.D. (1995). Fitting polytomous Item Response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(2), 143-165.

Embretson, S.E. & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item Response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Echternacht, G. (1976). Reliability and validity of item option weighting schemes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 301-309.

Frary, R. (1980). The effect of misinformation, partial information, and guessing on expected multiple-choice test item scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4(1), 79-90.

Frary, R. (1989). Partial credit scoring methods for multiple choice tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 79-96.

Glas, C.A.W. & Verhelst, N.D. (1989). Extensions of the partial credit model. Psychometrika, 54(4), 635-659.

Gözen, G. (2006). Kısa cevaplı ve çoktan seçmeli maddelerin “1-0” ve ağırlıklı puanlama yöntemleri ile puanlanmasının testin psikometrik özellikleri açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 5(9), 35–52.

Guilford, J.P. (1941). A simple scoring weight for test items and its reliability. Psychometrika, 6(6), 367-374.

Gulliksen, H. (1967). Theory of mental tests. New York: John-Wiley & Sons Inc.

Guttman, L. (1941). An outline of the statistical theory of prediction (In P. Horst, Ed.). Prediction of personal adjustment. Social Science Research Bulletin, 48, 253-364.

Haladyna, T.M. (1990). Effects of empirical option weighting on estimating domain scores and making pass/ fail decisions. Applied Measurement in Education, 3(3), 231-244.

Hambleton, R.K., Roberts, D.M. & Traub, R.E. (1970). A comparison of the reliability and validity of two methods for assessing partial knowledge on a multiple-choice test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 75-82.

Hambleton, R.K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response theory: Principles and application. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.

Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response theory. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Hutchinson, T.P. (1982). Some theories of performance in multiple-choice tests, and their implications for variants of the task. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 71-89.

Jaradat, D. & Tollefson, N. (1988). The impact of alternative scoring procedures for multiple-choice items on test reliability, validity and grading. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 627-635.

Kansup, W. & Hakstain, A.R. (1975). A comparison of several methods of assessing partial knowledge in multiple-choice tests: Scoring procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 219-230.

Lord, F. (1980). Applications of Item Response theory to practical testing problems. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lord, F. & Novick R.M. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Magnusson, D. (1966). Test theory. Stockholm: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Masters, G.N. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-173.

Masters, G.N. (1988). The analysis of partial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 279-297.

Nedelsky, L. (1954). Ability to avoid gross error as a measure of achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14, 459-472.

Odell, C.V. (1931). Further data concerning the effect of weighting exercises in new-type examinations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 700-704.

Özdemir, D. (2002). Çoktan seçmeli testlerin Klasik Test teorisi ve örtük özellikler teorisine göre hesaplanan psikometrik özelliklerinin iki kategorili ve ağırlıklandırılmış puanlanması yönünden karşılaştırılması. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Patnaik, D. & Traub, R.E. (1973). Differential weighting by judged degree of correctness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 281-286.

Sabers, D.L. & White, G.W. (1969). The effect of differential weighting of individual Item Responses on the predictive validity and reliability of an aptitude test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 6, 93-96.

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.

Saygı, B. (2004). “1-0” ve ağırlıklı puanlama yöntemleri ile puanlanan çoktan seçmeli testlerin madde ve test özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Siegel, S. (1977). Nonparametric statistics (Çev. Y. Topsever). A.Ü. Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları No: 274. (Eserin orijinali 1956’da yayımlandı).

Sympson, J.B. & Haladyna, T.M. (1988). An evaluation of polyweighting in domain-referenced testing. ERIC Digest, Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED294 911).

Thissen, D.M. (1976). Information in wrong responses to the raven progressive matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 201-214.

Thissen, D.M. (1991). Multilog user’s guide- multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using Item Response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software, Inc.

Wang, M.D. & Stanley, J.C. (1970). Differential weighting: A review of methods and empirical studies. Review of Educational Research, 40 (5), 663-705.

Waters, B.K. (1976). The measurement of partial knowledge: A comparison between two empirical option-weighting methods and rights-only scoring. The Journal of Educational Research, 69(7), 256-260.

Wright, B.D. (1999). Model selection: Rating scale or partial credit?. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(3), 641-642.


* This study is a summary of researcher’s doctoral dissertation prepared in the Institute of Educational Sciences of Ankara University under the advisory of Prof. Dr. Ezel Tavşancıl in 2007.

** Lecturer, PhD., Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, gozen@education.ankara.edu.tr

* Bu çalışma, 2007 yılında Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü’nde Prof. Dr. Ezel Tavşancıl danışmanlığında yürütülmüş olan doktora tezinin özetidir.

** Öğretim Görevlisi Dr., Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi, gozen@education.ankara.edu.tr


1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Similar:

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconComparing the Test Information Obtained through Multiple-Choice, Open-Ended and Mixed Item Tests Based on Item Response Theory

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconComparison of Validity and Reliability of Two Tests Developed by Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory 1

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconCh 19 Test Multiple Choice

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconDirections: When taking the AP exam in May, you will be exposed to 100 multiple choice questions. This is a Practice Test for Chapter Each of the questions were DELIBERATELY chosen due to their unusual high level of difficulty. This test is designed to make you THINK! It is

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconThe fit of one, two, and three parameter model s of item response theory ( IRT) to the student selection test ( SST ) of the student selection and placement

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconWe will describe views on inductive inference and methods for inferring general theories as they have developed from the scientific revolution to modern times. Our second topic is the development of methods for discovering causal relationships

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconA COMPARISON OF THE REPRODUCIBILITY AND PHYSIOLOGIC RESPONSE TO THERE MAXIMAL TREADMILL EXERCISE PROTOCOLS

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconMULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconMultiple Choice Questions

A Comparison of Differential Scoring Methods For Multiple Choice Tests in Terms of Classical Test and Item Response Theories iconMultiple Choice Questions

Sitenizde bu düğmeye yerleştirin:
Belgeleme


The database is protected by copyright ©okulsel.net 2012
mesaj göndermek
Belgeleme
Main page