Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Downey, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Item-Option Weighting of Achievement Tests: Comparative Study of Methods

Ronald G. Downey

Temple University

Previous research has studied the effects of dif ferent methods of item-option weighting on the re liability and the concurrent and predictive validity of achievement tests. Generally, increases in relia bility are found, but with mixed results for validity. This research attempted to interrelate several methods of producing option weights (i.e., Gutt man internal and external weights and judges' weights) and examined their effects on reliability and on concurrent, predictive, and face validity. Option weights to maximize reliability produced cross-validated (N = 974) increases in Hoyt reli ability over rights-only scoring (.82 versus .58, re spectively) ; decreases in correlations with other achievement tests; few changes in predictive valid ity ; and a loss in face validity (i.e., some correct op tions had lower weights than incorrect options). Weights to maximize validity did not cross-validate and led to a reduction in reliability and to mixed validity results. Judges' weights produced increases in reliability and mixed results with validity. The size of Guttman weights were shown to interact with item-option and test characteristics. It was concluded that option weighting offered limited, if any, improvement over unit weighting.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 3, No. 4, 453-461 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/014662167900300403
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?