Does examinee motivation moderate the relationship between test consequences and test performance

There is substantial evidence that the disposition of test takers is central to performance. This research extends previous work by replicating the experimental design of L. Wolf and J. Smith (1995) and conducting a secondary analysis of their data to attempt to demonstrate differential effect sizes for examinees reporting varying motivation levels in consequences versus no-consequences situations. The second phase of the study investigated the hypothesis that examinee motivation and item type moderate the relationship between test consequences and test performance by expanding the Wolf and Smith design to include multiple-choice and essay test items. Ninety undergraduate psychology majors participated in the study. The study supported previous findings concerning increases in self-reports of motivation and enhanced test performances in testing situations with consequences. The motivation subscores of Importance and Effort were found to be useful, and for some of the hypotheses the two scores behaved differently and in accord with expectations concerning the construct and context. The effect sizes observed for motivation and performance in the essay format compared to the multiple-choice were among the largest obtained in the study. (Contains 2 figures, 14 tables, and 9 references.) (SLD) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Does Examinee Motivation Moderate the Relationship between Test Consequences and Test Performance? Donna L. Sundre Center for Assessment and Research Studies James Madison University A symposium paper session presented at the AERA meeting Montreal, Canada April, 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Off ice of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Arfhis document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY ro a Cu.ya TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE