On the strategic equivalence of multiple-choice test scoring rules
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 field 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.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.dfaeii.ehu.es
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: Dpto. de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico II, = Facultad de CC. Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad del País Vasco, Avda. Lehendakari Aguirre 83, 48015 Bilbao, Spain|
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.:
- Haigh, Michael S. & List, John A., 2002.
"Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis,"
28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02.
- John List & Michael Haigh, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 2008.
"Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies,"
NBER Working Papers
14464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2008. "Risk-Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt3470h635, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2009. "Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9gn734nz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
- Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2006. "Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2tm5m16f, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-57, December.
- Bram Cadsby, C. & Maynes, Elizabeth, 2005. "Gender, risk aversion, and the drawing power of equilibrium in an experimental corporate takeover game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 39-59, January.
- Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Gardeazabal, Javier, 2007. "Optimal Correction for Guessing in Multiple-Choice Tests," DFAEII Working Papers 2007-08, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Marco Haan & Bart Los & Yohanes Riyanto & Martin van Geest, 2002.
"The Weakest Link - A Field Experiment in Rational Decision Making,"
- Haan, Marco, 2002. "The weakest link : a field experiment in rational decision making," Research Report 02F20, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehu:dfaeii:200520. 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: (Alcira Macías Redondo)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.