Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on the item characteristics differences of response position, response length, and question types of multiple-choice aptitude tests

선다형 적성검사에서의 선택지 위치, 선택지 지문 길이와 문항 진술 유형에 따른 문항 특성 차이 검증

  • Han, Young Seok (Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Hoseo University) ;
  • Kim, Myoung So (Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Hoseo University)
  • Received : 2014.01.28
  • Accepted : 2014.06.12
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the difference in the item characteristics in multiple-choice aptitude tests focusing on the response position, response length and question types. A university aptitude test consisting of 80 questions was used for this study. The subjects were 3120 senior high school students from 80 schools nation-wide (liberal arts-1650, natural sciences-1467 patients). The results suggest that item prediction is higher for numbers 2 and 3 (located in the middle) than numbers 1 and 4. The item discrimination was higher for pick-the-'wrong'-items than pick-the-'right'-items. In addition, longer choices are preferred. The suggestions for future research are provided based on these findings.

본 연구의 목적은 선다형 적성검사에서의 선택지 위치, 선택지 지문 길이 및 문항 진술 유형에 따른 문항 특성차이를 알아보는데 있다. 이를 위해 H대학의 적성평가 수시 전형 사전검사로 개발된 적성평가 80문항을 전국 80개 고등학교에 재학중인 고등학교 3학년생 3120명(인문계열-1650명, 자연계열-1467명)에게 실시하였다. 분석결과, 정답이 외곽치(1, 4번 선택지)보다 중앙치(2, 3번 선택지)에 위치할 경우 추측도가 높았고, 옳은 것을 고르는 문항보다 옳지 않은 것을 고르는 문항에서 변별도가 더 높았다. 또한 선택지의 길이가 길수록 선택지 선호도가 높은 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 선택형 적성검사에 대한 새로운 접근과 관련해서 본 연구의 의의와 추후 연구 방향을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Newsis, 82.5% of large companies, which, aptitude tests, skills tests conducted, 2014 Available from: http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=432553. accessed January., 01, 14.
  2. Bruce B. F, Stephanie P, Lisa M. Edwards, J. (2005) Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 357-64 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.008
  3. Cohen, A. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nded.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  4. Ji-hyun, Chun. (2008). A study on item type and item difficulty: A case of qualifying exam for Business English. The Korean Association of Sedretarial Studies, 17(1), 141-156.
  5. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 199-215. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553228400100203
  6. Chun, H. (2005). The effects of contents, pretasks and question types on Korean college students' lecture listening comprehension. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 241-264.
  7. Seong, Tae-Jae. (1996). Production and analysis of the theory and practice questions. Hakjisa.
  8. Yoon, Hye-Kyong, Seong, Tae-Jae(1998). An analysis of the item and test characteristics of multiple-choice items including the 'all of the above' or 'none of the above' alternatives. The Journal of Educational Research36(1), 131-147.
  9. Hwang Jung-gyu(1998). School Learning and Assessment. Seoul:Kyoyookbook.
  10. Halady. T. M. & Downing, S. M.(1989). A Taxonomy of multiple-choice item writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37-50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0201_3
  11. Yun, Jee Hwan, Lee, Moonbok, & Park, Yong-Hyo. (2012). The influence of the language of directions, questions, and choices in pratice CSAT on learners' test results. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 59-85.
  12. Yigal A, Maya B. H(2003). Guess Where: The Position of Correct Answers in Multiple-Choice Test Items as a Psychometric Variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(2), 109-128. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01099.x
  13. Sang, Kyong-Ah, Yang, Kil-Seok(2007). The effect of response position in a multiple-choice examination Asian Journal of Education. 8(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2007.8.1.002
  14. Baker F. B. Item Response Theory: Parameter Estimation Techniques. . New York: Marcel Dekker, 1992.
  15. Bardo, J. W. Yeager, S. J. and Klingsporn M. J. (1982) Preminary assessment of format-specific central tendency and leniency error insummated rating scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills: 54, 227-234. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1982.54.1.227
  16. Anderson, L. W., Karthwohl, D. R., Airasan, P. W., Criksank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J & Wittrock, M. C.(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessment: A revision of Blooms's taxonomy of educational objuctives. 1st ed. Pearson Education, Inc.
  17. Marcus, S.S., & Rips, L.J.(1979). Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Bahavior, 18, 199-223. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90127-0
  18. Yongwon Sun, Youngseok Han. (2000). Effects of attention and judgemental encoding in individual and group targets on illusory correlation and performance evaluation. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 13(1). 1-21.
  19. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Shavitt, S. Sherman, S. J., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, Jr.(1987). Illusory correlation in the perception of performance by self or a salient other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 518-543. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90019-9