Do students behave rationally in multiple-choice tests? Evidence from a field experiment
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 filed 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- 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.
- Michael Haigh & John List, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
- Haigh, Michael S. & List, John A., 2002. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers 28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- 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).
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 2008.
"Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies,"
NBER Working Papers
14464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 348-357, 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.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Bredon, George, 2003. "Take-Home Tests in Economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 52-60, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:natura:00237. 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: (Joe Seidel)
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.