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.

The Influence of the Val158Met Catechol-O-Methyltransferase Polymorphism on the Personality Traits of Bipolar Patients

6 p.

Judgmental-analytical procedures for adapting tests: Adaptation to Spanish of the Reasoning Tests Battery

Adapting a test between cultures or languages requires taking into account legal, linguistic, metric, and use-related considerations. Significantly more attention has been paid to the methodological aspects involved in the study of metric equivalence than to judgmental-analytical procedures prior to the empirical confirmation stage. However, considering the latter is crucial in the adaptation process. Along these lines, this paper seeks to describe and focus on the relevance of the previous stages, thereby offering a systematization process that comprises ten sections. This approach contributes to ensuring the construction of a test adapted and equivalent in as much as possible to the original. This process is exemplified by means of a Spanish language adaptation of a cognitive test originally designed in Portuguese for the Portuguese population, the Reasoning Test Battery. Copyright (C) 2013, Konrad Lorenz University Foundation. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.