On the Equivalence of Constructed- Response and Multiple-Choice Tests

Two sets of mathematical reasoning and two sets of verbal comprehension items were cast into each of three formats—constructed response, standard multiple-choice, and Coombs multiple- choice—in order to assess whether tests with iden tical content but different formats measure the same attribute, except for possible differences in error variance and scaling factors. The resulting 12 tests were administered to 199 eighth-grade stu dents. The hypothesis of equivalent measures was rejected for only two comparisons: the con structed-response measure of verbal comprehen sion was different from both the standard and the Coombs multiple-choice measures of this ability. Maximum likelihood factor analysis confirmed the hypothesis that a five-factor structure will give a satisfactory account of the common variance among the 12 tests. As expected, the two major factors were mathematical reasoning and verbal comprehension. Contrary to expectation, only one of the other three factors bore a (weak) resem blance to a format factor. Tests marking the abili ty to follow directions, recall and recognition memory, and risk-taking were included, but these variables did not correlate as expected with the three minor factors.

[1]  Frederic M. Lord,et al.  A significance test for the hypothesis that two variables measure the same trait except for errors of measurement , 1957 .

[2]  F. Swineford The measurement of a personality trait. , 1938 .

[3]  K. Jöreskog A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1969 .

[4]  L. Tucker An inter-battery method of factor analysis , 1958 .

[5]  P. Vernon The Determinants of Reading Comprehension , 1962 .

[6]  Robert C. Ziller,et al.  A measure of the gambling response-set in objective tests , 1957 .

[7]  F. Lord Testing if Two Measuring Procedures Measure the Same Psychological Dimension. , 1971 .

[8]  C. Villegas Confidence Region for a Linear Relation , 1964 .

[9]  A factor analysis of programmed learning and ability measures. , 1970 .

[10]  K. Jöreskog Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests , 1971 .

[11]  Ruth B. Ekstrom,et al.  MANUAL FOR KIT OF REFERENCE TESTS FOR COGNITIVE FACTORS (REVISED 1963) , 1963 .

[12]  Clyde H. Coombs,et al.  The Assessment of Partial Knowledge1 , 1956 .

[13]  F. Swineford Analysis of a personality trait. , 1941 .

[14]  Ronald K. Hambleton,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF TWO METHODS FOR ASSESSING PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE ON A MULTIPLE-CHOICE TEST , 1970 .

[15]  Leonard S. Cahen,et al.  Educational Testing Service , 1970 .

[16]  Quinn McNemar,et al.  Attenuation and interaction , 1958 .

[17]  R. Mcdonald A GENERALIZED COMMON FACTOR ANALYSIS BASED ON RESIDUAL COVARIANCE MATRICES OF PRESCRIBED STRUCTURE , 1969 .

[18]  Frederick B. Davis,et al.  The Effect on Test Reliability and Validity of Scoring Aptitude and Achievement Tests With Weights for Every Choice , 1959 .

[19]  J. P. Duncanson Learning and measured abilities. , 1966 .

[20]  Ronald K. Hambleton,et al.  The Effect of Scoring Instructions and Degree of Speededness on the Validity and Reliability of Multiple-Choice Tests1 , 1972 .

[21]  John Schmid,et al.  Some Modifications of the Multiple-Choice Item , 1953 .

[22]  A. W. Heim,et al.  AN EXPERIMENT ON MULTIPLE-CHOICE VERSUS OPEN-ENDED ANSWERING IN A VOCABULARY TEST , 1967 .

[23]  F. Lord A study of speed factors in tests and academic grades , 1956 .