Testing with personal probabilities is an advantageous alternative to multiple choice testing because guessing is eliminated. A crucial condition is that the subjects should be well calibrated. They are well calibrated when they report their true probabilities of being correct. It is shown that, in an ordinary school setting, even 1 l-year-olds can learn to be well calibrated in quite a short time, especially if probability testing is the method they become accustomed to. An interactive computer program to take a test (TestBet), which was used in the experiment, is described. Its use in regular education is feasible, and the educational advantages are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bennett, G. K. , Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1959). A manual for the Differential Aptitude Tests. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
2.
Dirkzwager, A. (1975). Computer-based testing with automatic scoring based upon subjective probabilities. In O. Lecarne & R. Lewis (Eds.), Computers in education (pp. 305-311). Amsterdam: International Federation for Information Processing, North Holland Publishing Company.
3.
Dirkzwager, A. (1993). A computer environment to develop valid and realistic predictions and self-assessment of knowledge with personal probabilites. In D. Leclercq & J. Bruno (Eds.), Item banking: Interactive testing and self-assessment (NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 112, pp. 146-166). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4.
Dirkzwager, A. (1996). TestBet. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Zwijsen.
5.
Echternacht, G. J. (1972). The use of confidence testing in objective tests. Review of Educational Research, 42, 217-236.
6.
Fokkema, S. D. , & Dirkzwager, A. (1961). Differentiele AanlegTests. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
7.
Hassmen, P. , & Hunt, D. P. (1994). Human self-assessment in multiple choice testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 149-160.
8.
Jensen, O. A. (1983). Increasing testing efficiency and effectiveness per item and per minute of testing time. Public Personnel Management Journal, 12(1), 63-82.
9.
Lichtenstein, S. , & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 149-171.
10.
Lord, F. M. (1964). The effect of random guessing on test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 745-748.
11.
Shuford, E. (1993). In pursuit of the fallacy: Resurrecting the penalty. In D. Leclercq & J. Bruno (Eds.), Item banking: Interactive testing and self-assessment (NATOASI Series F, Vol. 112, pp. 76-98). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Shuford, E. , Albert, A., & Massengill, H. E. (1966). Admissible probability measurement procedures. Psychometrica, 31, 125-145.
13.
Shuford, E. , & Brown, T. A. (1975). Elicitation of personal probabilities and their assessment. Instructional Science, 4, 137-188.
14.
Wallsten, J. S. , & Budescu, D. V. (1983). Encoding subjective probabilities: A psychological and psychometric review. Management Science, 29, 151-173.
