Correspondence

Gross, Leon J.; Algina, James

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1977.tb00600.x

Medical Education

1977

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1977.tb00600.x

|View full text |Cite

Correspondence

Leon J. Gross

James Algina

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1978

1992

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

A comparison of short and multiple choice questions in the evaluation of students of biochemistry

Forsdyke

1978

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Premedical and other undergraduate students were given an examination consisting of a section of short questions and a section of multiple choice questions of the one in five type. After correction for random guessing, the average multiple choice mark was close to the average short question mark. Thus the theoretical ‘average’ student did equally well in both types of examination. Individual multiple choice marks were plotted against the corresponding short question mark. Although the two sets of marks were highly correlated (P < 0.001), there was still a wide scatter around the best‐fit, least‐square line (r= 0.63). Thus dependence on one type of examination alone could have seriously penalized some students. The least‐squares line was extrapolated to determine the multiple‐choice mark of a theoretical ‘idiot’ student, defined as one obtaining zero marks in the short question section of the examination. This student did better than predicted on the basis of random guessing. On the other hand a theoretical ‘genius’ student, defined as one obtaining top marks in the short question section, did less well than predicted. Thus multiple choice examinations, even when corrected for the random guessing component, may overestimate weaker students and underestimate stronger students.

show abstract

A comparison of short and multiple choice questions in the evaluation of students of biochemistry

Forsdyke

1978

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Multiple True‐False Item Format: A Status Review

Frisbie

1992

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Correspondence

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

A comparison of short and multiple choice questions in the evaluation of students of biochemistry

A comparison of short and multiple choice questions in the evaluation of students of biochemistry

The Multiple True‐False Item Format: A Status Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About