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 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 1st and 2nd 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.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
PID pmc:PMC6168139
PID pmid:30278049
URL http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PLoSO..1303931V/abstract
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
URL http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6168139
URL http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6168139?pdf=render
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2894645732
URL https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203
URL http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203931&type=printable
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Open Access
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Vanderoost, Jef
Author Janssen, Rianne
Author Eggermont, Jan
Author Callens, Riet
Author De Laet, Tinne, 0000-0003-0624-3305
Contributor Steinborn, Michael B.
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Europe PubMed Central; PubMed Central; ORCID; UnpayWall; Datacite; DOAJ-Articles; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph
Hosted By Europe PubMed Central; PLoS ONE
Journal PLOS ONE, 13, null
Publication Date 2018-10-02
Publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Additional Info
Field Value
Language Undetermined
Resource Type Other literature type; Article; UNKNOWN
keyword Women's Health
keyword Q
keyword R
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::7a8c1adf1b6c7956c2167ad274e41442
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 25 December 2020, 17:17 (CET)
Created 25 December 2020, 17:17 (CET)