Reviewing and Changing Answers on Computerized Fixed-Item Vocabulary Tests

Abstract

Results obtained from computerized vocabulary tests were compared under conditions in which item review was permitted and not permitted. Comparisons between the review and no-review conditions yielded no statistically significant differences in number correct scores, ability estimates, or measurement error, but examinees in both conditions strongly desired review opportunities. Comparisons of answers before and after review within the review condition showed that only a small percentage of answers was changed (3.63%), that more answers were changed from wrong to right than from right to wrong (by a ratio of 2.25 to 1), that a large proportion of examinees (45%) changed answers to at least some questions, and that most examinees who changed answers improved their performance by doing so (by a ratio of 2.44 to 1). The results revealed that performance gains after review were greater for examinees of higher ability and that review was desired more by examinees with higher test anxiety. The major drawback to allowing review was a 35% increase in testing time.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.