Nonfunctioning Options: A Closer Look

Abstract

In a previous study, Cizek and O'Day reported the effects of eliminating nonfunctioning options from five-option, multiple-choice test items. That study, however, only investigated the effect of option removal on item performance when items were studied as a set and not the effects of option removal for individual items. The authors also did not examine potential changes in dimensionality resulting from altering the items. The present study provides a closer look at the effect of removing nonfunctioning options by examining changes in difficulty, discrimination, and dimensionality. Results of these analyses supported the conclusions of the earlier research and provide additional support for benefits that may accrue from eliminating nonfunctioning options: enhanced score reliability, reduced testing time, potential for broader domain sampling, and consequent increased validity of score interpretation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cizek, G. J. , & O'Day, D. (1994). Further investigation of nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 861-872.

Costin, F. (1970). The optimal number of alternatives in multiple-choice achievement tests: Some empirical evidence for a mathematical proof. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 353-358.

Costin, F. (1972). Three-choice versus four-choice items: Implications for reliability and validity of objective achievement tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(4), 1035-1038.

Ebel, R. L. (1969). Expected reliability as a function of choices per item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29(2), 565-570.

Grier, B. (1976). The optimal number of alternatives at a choice point with travel time considered. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14(1), 91-97.

Grier, J. B. (1975). The number of alternatives for optimum test reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(2), 109-113. CIZEK ET AL.

Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1985, April). A quantitative review of research on multiple-choice item writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1988, April). Functional distractors: Implications for test-item writing and test design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1989). Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 51-78.

10.

Haladyna, T. M. , & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 999-1010.

11.

Lord, F. M. (1977). Optimal number of choices per item-a comparison of four approaches. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(1), 33-38.

12.

Nandakumar, R. (1991). Traditional versus essential unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99-118.

13.

Stout, W. , Douglas, J. , Junker, B. , & Roussos, L. (1993). DIMTEST [Computer program]. Champaign: Department of Statistics, University of Illinois.

14.

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 Measurement, 51(4), 829-837.

15.

Trevisan, M. S. , Sax, G. , & Michael, W. B. (1994). Estimating the optimum number of options per item using an incremental paradigm. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4), 829-837.

16.

Tversky, A. (1964). On the optimal number of alternatives at a choice point. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(2), 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. In E. M. Huddleston (Ed.), The fourteen yearbook of the National Council on Measurements Used in Education (pp. 63-65). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.