An equation is derived which expresses test reliability as a function of number of item alternatives for the case in which only error due to guessing is present. This result is compared with the modified Spearman-Brown equation given by H. H. Remmers and his associates. Reliability coefficients predicted by these equations are compared with coefficients generated by a computer simulation method.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurkheimerG. J.Some effects of non-independent error in multiple-choice tests: a binomial model. Unpublished M.A. thesis, East Carolina College, Greenville, N. C., 1965.
2.
BurkheimerG. J.ZimmermanD. W.WilliamsR. H.The maximum reliability of a multiple-choice test as a function of number of items, number of choices, and group heterogeneity. J. exp. Educ., in press.
3.
CarrollJ. B.The effect of difficulty and chance success on correlations between items or between tests. Psychometrika, 1945, 10, 1–19.
4.
GuilfordJ. P.Psychometric methods. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
5.
GulliksenH.Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.
6.
LordF. M.Reliability of multiple-choice tests as a function of number of choices per item. J. educ. Psychol., 1944, 35, 175–180.
7.
PlumleeL. B.The effect of difficulty and chance success on item-test correlation and on test reliability. Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 69–86.
8.
RemmersH. H.KarslakeR.GageN. L.Reliability of multiple-choice measuring instruments as a function of the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula: I. J. educ. Psychol., 1940, 31, 583–590.
9.
ZimmermanD. W.WilliamsR. H.Chance success due to guessing and non-independence of true scores and error scores in multiple-choice tests: computer trials with prepared distributions. Psychol. Rep., 1965, 17, 159–165.
10.
ZimmermanD. W.WilliamsR. H.Generalization of the Spearman-Brown formula for test reliability: the case of non-independence of true scores and error scores. Brit. J. math. statist. Psychol., in press.
