Budescu David V, Bo Yuanchao
Depertament of Psychology, Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, NY, 100458 , USA.
Psychometrika. 2015 Dec;80(4):1105-22. doi: 10.1007/s11336-014-9425-x. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
We investigate the implications of penalizing incorrect answers to multiple-choice tests, from the perspective of both test-takers and test-makers. To do so, we use a model that combines a well-known item response theory model with prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47:263-91, 1979). Our results reveal that when test-takers are fully informed of the scoring rule, the use of any penalty has detrimental effects for both test-takers (they are always penalized in excess, particularly those who are risk averse and loss averse) and test-makers (the bias of the estimated scores, as well as the variance and skewness of their distribution, increase as a function of the severity of the penalty).
我们从考生和出题者的角度，研究了对多项选择题的错误答案进行扣分的影响。为此，我们使用了一个模型，该模型将一个著名的项目反应理论模型与前景理论相结合（卡尼曼和特沃斯基，《前景理论：风险下的决策分析》，《计量经济学》47:263 - 91，1979）。我们的结果表明，当考生完全了解评分规则时，任何扣分方式对考生（他们总是被过度扣分，尤其是那些厌恶风险和厌恶损失的考生）和出题者（估计分数的偏差以及分数分布的方差和偏度会随着扣分严重程度的增加而增加）都有不利影响。
