Investigating the Impact of Response Format on the Performance of Grammar Tests: Selected and Constructed

سال انتشار: 1396
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 169

فایل این مقاله در 26 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_JTLS-36-2_004

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 6 اردیبهشت 1400

چکیده مقاله:

When constructing a test, an initial decision is choosing an appropriate item response format which can be classified as selected or constructed. In large-scale tests where time and finance are of concern, the use of response chosen known as multiple-choice items is quite widespread. This study aimed at investigating the impact of response format on the performance of structure tests. Concurrent common item equating design was used to compare multiple-choice items with their constructed response stem-equivalent in a test of grammar. The Rasch model was employed to compare item difficulties, fit statistics, ability estimates and reliabilities of the two tests. Two independent sample t-tests were also conducted to investigate whether the differences among the item difficulty estimates and ability estimates of the two tests were statistically significant.  A statistically significant difference was observed in item difficulties. However, no significant difference was detected between the ability estimates, fit statistics, and reliabilities of the two tests.

نویسندگان

Farzaneh Mozaffari

University of Tehran

S. Mohammad Alavi

University of Tehran

Abbasali Rezaee

University of Tehran

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Ackerman, T.A., & Smith, P. L. (1988). A comparison of ...
  • Bacon, D. R. (2003). Assessing learning outcomes: A comparison of ...
  • Bachman, L. (1990). A fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: ...
  • Baghai, P. (2010). Test score was equating and fairness in ...
  • Bensoussan, M. (1984). A comparison of cloze and multiple- choice ...
  • Bleske-Rechek, A.  Zeug, N., & Webb, R. M. (2007). Discrepant ...
  • Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the ...
  • Bridgeman, B. (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended ...
  • Cheng, H. F. (2004). A Comparison of multiple-choice and open-ended ...
  • Currie, M.,&Chiramanee, T. (2010).The effect of the multiple-choice item format ...
  • Dávid, G. (2007). Investigating the performance of alternative types of ...
  • Dudley, A. (2006). Multiple dichotomous-scored items in second language testing: ...
  • Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of ...
  • Elinor, S. H. (1997, May). Reading native and foreign language ...
  • Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description ...
  • Frederickson, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing ...
  • Frisbie, D.A., & Druva, C.A. (1986).Estimating the reliability of multiple ...
  • Gibbs, W. J. (1995). An approach to designing computer-based evaluation ...
  • Godschalk, F. I., Swineford, F., & Coffman, W. E. (1966). ...
  • Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). ...
  • Hambleton, R. K. & Jones, R. W.  (1993). Comparison of ...
  • and item response theory and their applications to test development. ...
  • In’nami, Y. (2006). The effects of task types on listening ...
  • In'nami, Y.,& Koizumi, R. (2009). A meta-analysis of test format ...
  • Katz, L., Bennett, R.E. & Berger, A.E. (2000). Effects of ...
  • Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: ...
  • Linacre, J.M. (2016). A User's Guide to WINSTEPS®. Retrieved July ...
  • Lord, F. M. (1953). The relation of test score to ...
  • Lukhele, R., Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (1994). On the ...
  • Messick, S. (1993). Trait equivalence as construct validity of score ...
  • Morgenstem, C. F.  & Renner, J. W.  (1984). Measuring thinking ...
  • Quellmalz, E. S., Capell, F.J.& Chou, C.P. (1982). Effects of ...
  • Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response ...
  • Rogers, W., & Harley, D. (1999). An empirical comparison of ...
  • Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yashima, T., &Yoshizawa, K. (2006). A ...
  • Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? ...
  • Smith, E. V. Jr. (2001). Evidence for the reliability of ...
  • Teng, H. C. (1999). The effects of question type and ...
  • Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1984). A response model for ...
  • Tversky, A. (1964). On the optimal number of alternatives at ...
  • Trujillo, J. L., (2005). The effect of format and language ...
  • Traub, R. E. (1993). On the equivalence of the traits ...
  • Van den Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of ...
  • Ventouras, E., Triantis, D., Tsiakas, P., & Stergiopoulos, C. (2010). ...
  • Ward, W.C., Dupree, D., & Carlson, S.B. (1987). A comparison ...
  • Werts, C.E., Breland, H.M. Grandy, J., & Rock, D.A. (1980). ...
  • Wilson, M. (2005).Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. London: ...
  • Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع