IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Do Constructed-Response and Multiple-Choice Questions Measure the Same Thing?

Listed author(s):

Our study empirically investigates the relationship between constructed-response (CR) and multiple-choice (MC) questions using a unique data set compiled from several years of university introductory economics classes. We conclude that CR and MC questions do not measure the same thing. Our main contribution is that we show that CR questions contain independent information that is related to student learning. Specifically, we find that the component of CR scores that cannot be explained by MC responses is positively and significantly related to (i) performance on a subsequent exam in the same economics course, and (ii) academic performance in other courses. Further, we present evidence that CR questions provide information that could not be obtained by expanding the set of MC questions. A final contribution of our study is that we demonstrate that empirical approaches that rely on factor analyses or Walstad-Becker (1994)-type regressions are unreliable in the following sense: It is possible for these empirical procedures to lead to the conclusion that CR and MC questions measure the same thing, even when the underlying data contain strong, contrary evidence. JEL Classifications: A22

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers in Economics with number 09/08.

in new window

Length: 35 pages
Date of creation: 01 May 2009
Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:09/08
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

Phone: 64 3 369 3123 (Administrator)
Fax: 64 3 364 2635
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:09/08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Albert Yee)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.