IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To Use Constructed-Response Questions, Or Not To Use Constructed-Response Questions? That Is The Question




Advocates of Constructed Response (CR) questions argue that CR questions provide a different assessment of student knowledge than is available from Multiple Choice (MC) questions. If that is the case, and if the benefit in terms of improved assessment is substantial, then it follows that grade outcomes using CR questions should be different from those using MC questions. We investigate this using a large dataset composed of individual assessment results from thousands of students in introductory economics classes at a large public university. Empirical analysis of our large sample of students indicates that a switch to an all-MC format would result in grade changes that are in the “small” to moderate range when compared to grade changes that occur between assessments. This evidence suggests that CR questions could be abandoned at relatively little cost in grading accuracy. However, there are other arguments in favour of keeping CR questions. In particular, it has been suggested that students perceive a mix of CR and MC as “fairer” than an assessment composed exclusively of one or the other question type. Further, some instructors believe that CR questions encourage students to study harder. We provide survey evidence that supports both arguments.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Hickson & W. Robert Reed & Nicholas Sander, 2010. "To Use Constructed-Response Questions, Or Not To Use Constructed-Response Questions? That Is The Question," Working Papers in Economics 10/69, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
  • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:10/69

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Stephen Hickson & W. Robert Reed, 2009. "Do Constructed-Response and Multiple-Choice Questions Measure the Same Thing?," Working Papers in Economics 09/08, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Principles of Economics Assessment; Multiple Choice; Constructed Response; Free Response; Essay;

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:cbt:econwp:10/69. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.