This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Do students behave rationally in multiple-choice tests? Evidence from a field experiment

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
M.P. Espinosa
J. Gardeazabal

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

A disadvantage of multiple-choice tests is that students have incentives to guess. To discourage guessing, it is common to use scoring rules that either penalize wrong answers or reward omissions. These scoring rules are considered equivalent in psychometrics, although experimental evidence has not always been consistent with this claim. We model students' decisions and show, first, that equivalence holds only under risk neutrality and, second, that the two rules can be modified so that they become equivalent even under risk aversion. This paper presents the results of a filed experiment in which we analyze the decisions of subjects taking multiple-choice exams. The evidence suggests that differences between scoring rules are due to risk aversion as theory predicts. We also find that the number of omitted items depends on the scoring rule, knowledge, gender, and other covariates.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.fieldexperiments.com/uploads/espinosa_gardeazabal2007.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The Field Experiments Website in its series Natural Field Experiments with number 0044.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:feb:natura:0044

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.fieldexperiments.com

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Trevor Gallen).

Related research
Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2008. "Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," NBER Working Papers 14464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 1000 journals are listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-25.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.