Practical Guidance for Writing Multiple-Choice Test Questions in Introductory Analytics Courses

References

• Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Longman, New York).Google Scholar
• Bloom BS (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (McKay, New York).Google Scholar
• Burns ER (2010) “Anatomizing” reversed: Use of examination questions that foster use of higher order learning skills by students. Anatomy Sci. Edu. 3(6):330–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler AC (2018) Multiple-choice testing in education: Are the best practices for assessment also good for learning? J. Appl. Res. Memory Cognition 7(3):323–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler-Henderson K, Crawford J (2020) A systematic review of online examinations: A pedagogical innovation for scalable authentication and integrity. Comput. Edu. 159:104024.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collignon SE, Chacko J, Wydick MM (2020) An alternative multiple‐choice question format to guide feedback using student self‐assessment of knowledge. Decision Sci. J. Innovative Edu. 18(3):456–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins J (2006) Writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. Radiographics 26(2):543–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downing SM (2005) The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: The consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. Adv. Health Sci. Edu. Theory Practice 10(2):133–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Froyd J, Layne J (2008) Faculty development strategies for overcoming the “Curse of Knowledge.” Proc. 38th Annual Frontiers in Edu. Conf. (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ).Google Scholar
• Ghidinelli M, Cunningham M, Monotti IC, Hindocha N, Rickli A, McVicar I, Glyde M (2021) Experiences from two ways of integrating pre-and post-course multiple-choice assessment questions in educational events for surgeons. J. Eur. CME 10(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gierl MJ, Bulut O, Guo Q, Zhang X (2017) Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Rev. Edu. Res. 87(6):1082–1116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gronlund NE (2004) Writing Instructional Objectives for Teaching and Assessment, 7th ed. (Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Downing SM (1989) A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl. Measures Edu. 2(1):37–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Rodriguez MC (2013) Developing and Validating Test Items (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Rodriguez MC (2021) Using full-information item analysis to improve item quality. Edu. Assessment 26(3):198–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC (2002) A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl. Measures Edu. 15(3):309–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuechler WL, Simkin MG (2010) Why is performance on multiple‐choice tests and constructed‐response tests not more closely related? Theory and an empirical test. Decision Sci. J. Innovative Edu. 8(1):55–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawlor KB, Hornyak MJ (2012) Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can contribute to achievement of student learning outcomes. Developments Bus. Simulation Experient. Learn. 39:259–267.Google Scholar
• Lemons PP, Lemons JD (2013) Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: It’s not just Bloom’s. CBE Life Sci. Edu. 12(1):47–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madaus GF, O’Dwyer LM (1999) A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan 80(9):688–695.Google Scholar
• Manoharan S (2019) Cheat-resistant multiple-choice examinations using personalization. Comput. Edu. 130(March):139–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McTighe J, Wiggins G (2012) Understanding by Design Framework(Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA).Google Scholar
• Meda L, Swart AJ (2018) Analysing learning outcomes in an Electrical Engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s Taxonomy. Eur. J. Engrg. Edu. 43(3):399–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miltenburg J (2019) Online teaching in a large, required, undergraduate management science course. INFORMS Trans. Edu. 19(2):89–104.Link, Google Scholar
• Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010) Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci. Edu. 9(4):435–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morrison S, Free KW (2001) Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking. J. Nursing Edu. 40(1):17–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palocsay SW, Stevens SP, Novoa LJ (2020) STRATA: A spreadsheet tool for multidimensional analysis of operations research/management science assessment test data. INFORMS Trans. Edu. 21(1):41–56.Google Scholar
• Paniagua MA, Swygert KA (2016) Constructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences (National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Roediger III H, Putnam A, Smith M (2011) Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. Psych. Learn. Motivation 55:1–36.Google Scholar
• Rodriguez MC (2003) Construct equivalence of multiple‐choice and constructed‐response items: A random effects synthesis of correlations. J. Edu. Measures 40(2):163–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez MC (2005) Three options are optimal for multiple‐choice items: A meta‐analysis of 80 years of research. Edu. Measures 24(2):3–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez MC, Albano AD (2017) The College Instructor’s Guide to Writing Test Items: Measuring Student Learning (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scully D (2017) Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment Res. Evaluation 22:4.Google Scholar
• Shin J, Bulut O, Gierl MJ (2020) The effect of the most-attractive-distractor location on multiple-choice item difficulty. J. Experiment. Edu. 88(4):643–659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simkin M, Kuechler W (2005) Multiple-choice tests and student understanding: What is the connection? Decision Sci. J. Innovative Ed. 3(1):73–98.Google Scholar
• Swart AJ (2010) Evaluation of final examination papers in engineering: A case study using Bloom’s Taxonomy. IEEE Trans. Edu. 53(2):257–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sweller J (2011) Cognitive load theory. Psych. Learn. Motivation 55:37–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vanderbilt A, Feldman M, Wood I (2013) Assessment in undergraduate medical education: a review of course exams. Medical Edu. Online 18(1):20438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang L (2019) Does rearranging multiple‐choice item response options affect item and test performance? ETS Research Report Series, ETS RR-19-02, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Wind S, Alemdar M, Lingle J, Moore R, Asilkalkan A (2019) Exploring student understanding of the engineering design process using distractor analysis. Internat. J.STEM Ed. 6(1):1–18.Google Scholar
• Zhai X, Li M (2021) Validating a partial-credit scoring approach for multiple-choice science items: An application of fundamental ideas in science. Internat. J. Sci. Edu. 43(10):1640–1666.Crossref, Google Scholar