Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of using three-option multiple-choice items. In these studies three- and four-option items were constructed from preexisting item analysis data obtained from five-option items. In this study, a two-option test was constructed, and options were systematically added to this test by using a taxonomy of item writing rules to guide the process of distractor development. Nonsignificant differences (p 2 .05) were found among the reliability coefficients, the reliability estimates for the three-, four-, and five-option formats being all on the same order of magnitude. These findings continue to provide evidence for the efficacy of the three-option item.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Budescu, D. , & Nevo, B. (1985). Optimal number of options: An investigation of the assumption of proportionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 183-196.
2.
Costin, F. (1970). The optimal number of alternatives in multiple-choice tests: Some empirical evidence for a mathematical proof. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 353-358.
3.
Costin, F (1972). Three-choice versus four-choice items: Implications for reliability and validity of objective achievement tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 1035-1038.
4.
Ebel, R. (1969). Expected reliability as a function of choices per item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 565-570.
5.
Green, K. , Sax, G., & Michael, W. (1982). Validity and reliability of tests having differing numbers of options for students of differing levels of ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 239-245.
6.
Grier, J. B. (1975). The number of alternatives for optimum test reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 109-113.
7.
Hakstian, A. R. , & Whalen, T. E. (1976). A k-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 219-231.
8.
Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1989a). Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 51-78.
9.
Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1989b). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 37-50.
10.
Lord, F. M. (1944). Reliability of multiple-choice tests as a function of choices per item. Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 175-180.
11.
Lord, F. M. (1977). Optimal number of choices per item-A comparison of four approaches. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 33-38.
12.
Owen, S. V. , & Froman, R. D. (1987). What's wrong with three-option multiple choice items? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 513-522.
13.
Roid, G. H. , & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Straton, R. G. , & Catts, R. M. (1980). A comparison of two, three, four-choice item tests given a fixed total number of choices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 357-365.
15.
Trevisan, M. S. , Sax, G., & Michael, W. B. (1991). The effects of the number of options per item and student ability on test validity and reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 51, 829-837.
16.
Tversky, A. (1964). On the optimal number of alternatives at a choice point. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 386-391.
17.
Williams, B. J. , & Ebel, R. L. (1957). The effect of varying the number of alternatives per item on multiple-choice vocabulary test items. Fourteenth yearbook of the National Council on Measurement Used in Education (pp. 63-65). Ames, IA: National Council.
