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.

A Non-Parametric Dimension Test of the Term Structure

Published as an article in: Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 2004, vol. 8, issue 3, article 6.

Using network mesures to test evolved NK-landscapes

In this paper we empirically investigate which are the structural characteristics that can help to predict the complexity of NK-landscape instances for estimation of distribution algorithms. To this end, we evolve instances that maximize the estimation of distribution algorithm complexity in terms of its success rate. Similarly, instances that minimize the algorithm complexity are evolved. We then identify network measures, computed from the structures of the NK-landscape instances, that have a statistically significant difference between the set of easy and hard instances. The features identified are consistently significant for different values of N and K.

Can the change in the composition of the US GDP explain the Great Moderation? A test via oil price shocks

The paper investigates whether the growing GDP share of the services sector can contribute to explain the great moderation in the US. We identify and analyze three oil price shocks and use a SVAR analysis to measure their economic impact on the US economy at both the aggregate and the sectoral level. We find mixed support for the explanation of the great moderation in terms of shrinking oil shock volatilities and observe that increases (decreases) in oil shock volatilities are contrasted by a weakening (strengthening) in their transmission mechanism. Across sectors, services are the least affected by any oil shock. As the contribution of services to the GDP volatility increases over time, we conclude that a composition effect contributed to moderate the conditional volatility to oil shocks of the US GDP.