IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v24y2017i17p1214-1217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should I guess?

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Sewell

Abstract

Formula scoring, or the use of a correction (or penalty) for guessing, has been commonly practiced on standardized tests for almost 100 years. The correction deducts a portion of the question’s point value for an incorrect response, with no points awarded or deducted for an omitted response. The optimal response strategy is dependent on the student’s risk attitude and is thus difficult to identify and convey, as discussed. This study uses survey data to examine the advice that has been provided (often at some cost) to students facing a test with a correction. The impact of some of this advice as well as explanations for its persistence is discussed. In so doing, the study does provide support for the apparent ongoing abandonment of this scoring practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Sewell, 2017. "Should I guess?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(17), pages 1214-1217, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:24:y:2017:i:17:p:1214-1217
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2016.1267838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2016.1267838
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2016.1267838?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maya Bar-Hillel & David Budescu & Yigal Attali, 2005. "Scoring and keying multiple choice tests: A case study in irrationality," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 4(1), pages 3-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    3. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2015. "An axiomatization of multiple-choice test scoring," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 24-27.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:165-172 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Gardeazabal, Javier, 2007. "Optimal Correction for Guessing in Multiple-Choice Tests," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    6. Espinosa Maria Paz & Gardeazabal Javier, 2020. "The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, July.
    7. Eyal Peer & Lidor Solomon, 2012. "Professionally biased: Misestimations of driving speed, journey time and time-savings among taxi and car drivers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 165-172, March.
    8. David Budescu & Yuanchao Bo, 2015. "Analyzing Test-Taking Behavior: Decision Theory Meets Psychometric Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1105-1122, December.

    More about this item

    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:taf:apeclt:v:24:y:2017:i:17:p:1214-1217. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.