Distractor Functioning in Modified Items for Test Accessibility
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3279982 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael C Rodríguez (0000-0001-8871-1509, University of Minnesota), Ryan J Kettler (0000-0003-4395-654X, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey), Stephen N Elliott (0000-0003-1643-0489, Arizona State University) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 4/4/2158244014553586 |
| Publication date | 2014-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | SAGE Open (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2158-2440 • E-ISSN: 2158-2440 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/2158244014553586 |
| OpenAlex | W2137103790 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 14 |
Effective distractors in multiple-choice items should attract lower ability students, those with misconceptions or limited knowledge and skills, because they are based on common misconceptions or errors in logic. A large, multi-state data set collected for a quasi-experimental study on test modifications was analyzed to measure the impact on distractor functioning. The key modification of interest was the removal of the weakest of three distractors, from 39 items in reading and 39 items in mathematics. Distractor functioning was neither systematically improved nor systematically weakened through the modification process. However, more than 70% of the distractors became more discriminating. A moderate correlation between distractor selection rate and distractor discrimination, in mathematics, may have indicated that the modified items were being missed by the appropriate students. Implications of these findings for test developers are discussed
Cognitive psychology · Developmental psychology · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Multiple choice · Computer Science · Psychology · Psychometric Methodologies and Testing · Reading and Literacy Development · Student Assessment and Feedback · Artificial Intelligence
Developing and Validating Test Items
A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment
How Many Options is Enough for a Multiple-Choice Test Item
The Relation between Incorrect Option Choice and Estimated Ability
Psychometric Considerations for Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |