Cargando…

Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES: This study is the first to offer an in-depth comparison of elimination testing with the scoring rule of Arnold & Arnold (hereafter referred to as elimination testing with adapted scoring) and negative marking. As such, this study is motivated by the search for an alter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vanderoost, Jef, Janssen, Rianne, Eggermont, Jan, Callens, Riet, De Laet, Tinne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6168139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30278049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
_version_ 1783360316781887488
author Vanderoost, Jef
Janssen, Rianne
Eggermont, Jan
Callens, Riet
De Laet, Tinne
author_facet Vanderoost, Jef
Janssen, Rianne
Eggermont, Jan
Callens, Riet
De Laet, Tinne
author_sort Vanderoost, Jef
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES: This study is the first to offer an in-depth comparison of elimination testing with the scoring rule of Arnold & Arnold (hereafter referred to as elimination testing with adapted scoring) and negative marking. As such, this study is motivated by the search for an alternative for negative marking that still discourages guessing, but is less disadvantageous for non-relevant student characteristics such a risk-aversion and does not result in grade inflation. The comparison is structured around seven hypotheses: in comparison with negative marking, elimination testing with adapted scoring leads to (1) a similar average score (no grade inflation); (2) students expressing their partial knowledge; (3) a decrease in the number of blank answers; (4) no gender bias in the number of blank answers; (5) a reduction in guessing; (6) a decrease in self-reported test anxiety; and finally (7) students preferring elimination testing with adapted scoring over negative marking. METHODOLOGY: To investigate the above hypotheses, this study implemented elimination testing with adapted scoring and negative marking in real exam settings in two courses in a Faculty of Medicine at a large university. Due to changes in the master of medicine the same two courses were taught to both students of the 1(st) and 2(nd) master in the same semester. Given that both student groups could take the same exam with different test instructions and scoring methods, a unique opportunity occurred in which elimination testing with adapted scoring and negative marking could be compared in a high-stakes testing situation. After receiving the grades on the exams, students received a questionnaire to assess their experiences. FINDINGS: The statistical analysis taking into account student ability and gender showed that elimination testing with adapted scoring is a valuable alternative for negative marking when looking for a scoring method that discourages guessing. In contrast to traditional scoring of elimination testing, elimination testing with adapted scoring does not result in grade inflation in comparison with negative marking. This study showed that elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces blank answers and finds strong indications for the reduction of guessing in comparison with negative marking. Finally, students preferred elimination testing with adapted scoring over negative marking and reported lower stress levels in elimination testing with adapted scoring in comparison with negative marking.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6168139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61681392018-10-19 Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking Vanderoost, Jef Janssen, Rianne Eggermont, Jan Callens, Riet De Laet, Tinne PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES: This study is the first to offer an in-depth comparison of elimination testing with the scoring rule of Arnold & Arnold (hereafter referred to as elimination testing with adapted scoring) and negative marking. As such, this study is motivated by the search for an alternative for negative marking that still discourages guessing, but is less disadvantageous for non-relevant student characteristics such a risk-aversion and does not result in grade inflation. The comparison is structured around seven hypotheses: in comparison with negative marking, elimination testing with adapted scoring leads to (1) a similar average score (no grade inflation); (2) students expressing their partial knowledge; (3) a decrease in the number of blank answers; (4) no gender bias in the number of blank answers; (5) a reduction in guessing; (6) a decrease in self-reported test anxiety; and finally (7) students preferring elimination testing with adapted scoring over negative marking. METHODOLOGY: To investigate the above hypotheses, this study implemented elimination testing with adapted scoring and negative marking in real exam settings in two courses in a Faculty of Medicine at a large university. Due to changes in the master of medicine the same two courses were taught to both students of the 1(st) and 2(nd) master in the same semester. Given that both student groups could take the same exam with different test instructions and scoring methods, a unique opportunity occurred in which elimination testing with adapted scoring and negative marking could be compared in a high-stakes testing situation. After receiving the grades on the exams, students received a questionnaire to assess their experiences. FINDINGS: The statistical analysis taking into account student ability and gender showed that elimination testing with adapted scoring is a valuable alternative for negative marking when looking for a scoring method that discourages guessing. In contrast to traditional scoring of elimination testing, elimination testing with adapted scoring does not result in grade inflation in comparison with negative marking. This study showed that elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces blank answers and finds strong indications for the reduction of guessing in comparison with negative marking. Finally, students preferred elimination testing with adapted scoring over negative marking and reported lower stress levels in elimination testing with adapted scoring in comparison with negative marking. Public Library of Science 2018-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6168139/ /pubmed/30278049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931 Text en © 2018 Vanderoost et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vanderoost, Jef
Janssen, Rianne
Eggermont, Jan
Callens, Riet
De Laet, Tinne
Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title_full Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title_fullStr Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title_full_unstemmed Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title_short Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
title_sort elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6168139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30278049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderoostjef eliminationtestingwithadaptedscoringreducesguessingandanxietyinmultiplechoiceassessmentsbutdoesnotincreasegradeaverageincomparisonwithnegativemarking
AT janssenrianne eliminationtestingwithadaptedscoringreducesguessingandanxietyinmultiplechoiceassessmentsbutdoesnotincreasegradeaverageincomparisonwithnegativemarking
AT eggermontjan eliminationtestingwithadaptedscoringreducesguessingandanxietyinmultiplechoiceassessmentsbutdoesnotincreasegradeaverageincomparisonwithnegativemarking
AT callensriet eliminationtestingwithadaptedscoringreducesguessingandanxietyinmultiplechoiceassessmentsbutdoesnotincreasegradeaverageincomparisonwithnegativemarking
AT delaettinne eliminationtestingwithadaptedscoringreducesguessingandanxietyinmultiplechoiceassessmentsbutdoesnotincreasegradeaverageincomparisonwithnegativemarking