Optimal Correction for Guessing in Multiple-Choice Tests
AbstractBuilding on Item Response Theory we introduce studentsâ€™ optimal behavior in multiple-choice tests. Our simulations indicate that the optimal penalty is relatively high, because although correction for guessing discriminates against risk-averse subjects, this effect is small compared with the measurement error that the penalty prevents. This result obtains when knowledge is binary or partial, under different normalizations of the score, when risk aversion is related to knowledge and when there is a pass-fail break point. We also find that the mean degree of difficulty should be close to the mean level of knowledge and that the variance of difficulty should be high.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II in its series DFAEII Working Papers with number 2007-08.
Date of creation: Dec 2007
Date of revision:
Postal: Dpto. de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico II, = Facultad de CC. Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad del País Vasco, Avda. Lehendakari Aguirre 83, 48015 Bilbao, Spain
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-12-15 (All new papers)
- NEP-KNM-2007-12-15 (Knowledge Management & Knowledge Economy)
- NEP-UPT-2007-12-15 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Maya Bar-Hillel & David Budescu & Yigal Attali, 2005. "Scoring and keying multiple choice tests: A case study in irrationality," Mind and Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 4(1), pages 3-12, 06.
- Marín, Carmen & Rosa-García, Alfonso, 2011. "Gender bias in risk aversion: evidence from multiple choice exams," MPRA Paper 39987, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- M Espinosa & J Gardeazabal, 2007.
"Do students behave rationally in multiple-choice tests? Evidence from a field experiment,"
Natural Field Experiments
00237, The Field Experiments Website.
- María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
- Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Gardeazabal, Javier, 2005. "On the strategic equivalence of multiple-choice test scoring rules," DFAEII Working Papers 2005-20, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alcira Macías Redondo).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.