No abstract

No abstract

Formula scoring is a procedure designed to reduce multiple‐choice test score irregularities due to guessing. Typically, a formula score is obtained by subtracting a proportion of the number of wrong responses from the number correct. Examinees are instructed to omit items when their answers would be sheer guesses among all choices but otherwise to guess when unsure of an answer. Thus, formula scoring is not intended to discourage guessing when an examinee can rule out one or more of the options within a multiple‐choice item. Examinees who, contrary to the instructions, do guess blindly among all choices are not penalized by formula scoring on the average; depending on luck, they may obtain better or worse scores than if they had refrained from this guessing. In contrast, examinees with partial information who refrain from answering tend to obtain lower formula scores than if they had guessed among the remaining choices. (Examinees with misinformation may be exceptions.) Formula scoring is viewed as inappropriate for most classroom testing but may be desirable for speeded tests and for difficult tests with low passing scores. Formula scores do not approximate scores from comparable fill‐in‐the‐blank tests, nor can formula scoring preclude unrealistically high scores for examinees who are very lucky.

Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three‐factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations.