IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/adr/anecst/y2022i147p3-50.html

Hit or Miss? Test Taking Behavior in Multiple Choice Exams

Author

Listed:
  • Pelin Akyol
  • James Key
  • Kala Krishna

Abstract

This paper is the first to structurally model how a test taker answers questions in a multiple choice exam. We allow for the possibility of a penalty for a wrong answer which makes risk averse examinees more likely to skip questions. Despite the lack of item response data, we can estimate the model by using the insight that skipping behavior, together with penalties for wrong answers, makes certain scores much more likely than others. Using data from the Turkish University Entrance Exam, we estimate the model and find that candidates' attitudes towards risk differ according to their gender and ability with females and those with high ability being significantly more risk-averse. However, the impact of differences in risk aversion on scores is small. As a result, a higher guessing penalty increases the precision of the exam, and does so with a minimal impact on gender bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelin Akyol & James Key & Kala Krishna, 2022. "Hit or Miss? Test Taking Behavior in Multiple Choice Exams," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 147, pages 3-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:adr:anecst:y:2022:i:147:p:3-50
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/48684785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48684785
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.2307/48684785?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Riener, Gerhard & Wagner, Valentin, 2017. "Shying away from demanding tasks? Experimental evidence on gender differences in answering multiple-choice questions," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 43-62.
    2. J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz & Juan José Ganuza & Manuel García, 2020. "Gender Gap and Multiple Choice Exams in Public Selection Processes," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 235(4), pages 11-28, December.
    3. Graetz, Georg & Karimi, Arizo, 2019. "Explaining gender gap variation across assessment forms," Working Paper Series 2019:8, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    4. Heiko Karle & Dirk Engelmann & Martin Peitz, 2022. "Student performance and loss aversion," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(2), pages 420-456, April.
    5. Alexis Direr, 2025. "Ecient Scoring of Multiple-Choice tests [Notation efficace des questions à choix multiples]," Post-Print hal-05384180, HAL.
    6. Iriberri, Nagore & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2021. "Brave boys and play-it-safe girls: Gender differences in willingness to guess in a large scale natural field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Jef Vanderoost & Rianne Janssen & Jan Eggermont & Riet Callens & Tinne De Laet, 2018. "Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, October.
    8. Karlsson, Niklas & Lunander, Anders, 2025. "Cutoff Point in Multiple Choice Examinations using Negative Marking or Number of Correct Scoring - An Analysis of Statistical Power," Working Papers 2025:9, Örebro University, School of Business.
    9. Alexis DIRER, 2020. "Efficient scoring of multiple-choice tests," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2752, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    10. Maddalena Davoli, 2023. "A, B, or C? Question Format and the Gender Gap in Financial Literacy," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0206, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    11. Saygin, Perihan O. & Atwater, Ann, 2021. "Gender differences in leaving questions blank on high-stakes standardized tests," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Graetz, Georg & Karimi, Arizo, 2022. "Gender gap variation across assessment types: Explanations and implications," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Claire Duquennois, 2022. "Fictional Money, Real Costs: Impacts of Financial Salience on Disadvantaged Students," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(3), pages 798-826, March.
    14. Hayri Alper Arslan & Yang Song & Tong Wang, 2024. "Preference submission timing and college admission outcomes: evidence from Turkey," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 28(1), pages 189-241, February.
    15. Montolio, Daniel & Taberner, Pere A., 2021. "Gender differences under test pressure and their impact on academic performance: A quasi-experimental design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 1065-1090.
    16. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
    17. Anaya, Lina & Iriberri, Nagore & Rey-Biel, Pedro & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Understanding performance in test taking: The role of question difficulty order," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adr:anecst:y:2022:i:147:p:3-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Secretariat General or Laurent Linnemer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ensaefr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.