Evaluation of an Ibm Card Punchboard Used as a Test Answer Sheet
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13656302 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas C Burgess (Portland State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1970 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 146-146 |
| Publication date | 1970-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychological Reports (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-2941 • E-ISSN: 1558-691X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2466/pr0.1970.27.1.146 |
| OpenAlex | W2062870547 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
Several years ago Sakoda and Willey (6) and Sakoda and Greenwood (5) suggested the use of IBM cards to construct a punchboard for use as a test answer sheet. Such a device could be used as a teaching machine resembling the early ones of Pressey (4) and its use would result in punched cards which could be processed by modern computing machinery. The idea was attractive, but no empirical data have been reported to indicate the effects of such a device on test scores. Since it has been reported that changes in answer sheet format may make a difference (1, 3), it would be helpful to have some evaluation of the effects on test scores from using the punchboard answer sheet. The final examination in an extension psychology course was devised with two parts each containing 40 multiple-choice questions (one item was used as a sample question to learn to use the punchboard). The two parts were of equal difficulty and sampled the content of the course in similar ways. All 23 students answered one part on IBM 805 answer sheets, the other part on the punchboard. Half of the students began with the punchboard, half with the conventional answer sheet. Students were also asked to evaluate the experience on a separate, anonymous questionnaire. Hoyt (2) reliability coefficients were .59 for the traditional part and .58 for the punchboard part of the test. The SDs of 4.05 and 4.23 were not significantly different. Mean scores (24.7 on the traditional half and 21.4 on the punchboard half) did differ significantly at the .05 level (t = 2.6120). No significant differences were found in the scores of those taking the punchboard first and those who took it second. Nor did these groups differ significantly in their performance on the traditional form. Student reactions were mixed. Nearly all reported no problem in understanding what they were to do. Most students (70%) felt it was an appreciable disadvantage to be unable to correct a response made in error. Most felt that immediate feedback was valuable as a learning experience. Students were about evenly split on how helpful it was to know their score as they went through the questions.. Some found it helpful, but many were too threatened and upset by their errors to feel it was helpful. Use of the punchboard answer sheet as a final examination for a psychology course was well received by the students but with some reservations by those who became upset by knowing the number of errors they were making. It gave results which were equally reliable and equally variable, but lower mean scores suggested that it made the test more difficult
IBM · Test (biology · Library Collection Development and Digital Resources · Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |