倒扣指導語對測驗品質的影響－以物理學科測驗爲例

Effects of Formula Scoring and Number-Right Scoring Instructions on Test Quality: Taking a Multiple-Choice Physics Test as an Example

區雅倫(Ya-Lun Ou) ； 張耿輔(Ken-Fu Chang) ； 翁儷禎(Li-Jen Weng) ； 程暐瀅(Wei-Ying Cheng)

《測驗學刊》 55卷3期 (2008/12) Pp. 591-610

https://doi.org/10.7108/PT.200812.0007

摘要

選擇題的答錯不倒扣是大多數評量專家所建議的計分方式，但台灣重要的入學考試指定科目考試採用的是答錯倒扣計分，過去研究甚少就學科測驗進行倒扣計分的相關探討，台灣亦缺乏倒扣與否的評鑑文獻。因此，本研究從測驗編製者的觀點，欲了解倒扣與否的測驗指導語對測驗品質的影響。以物理學科測驗為工具，抽樣台灣313名高三學生受測不同指導語但試題相同的題本，分析倒扣或不倒扣指導語對答對題數、測驗分數的內部一致性信度、試題難度、鑑別度與棄答題數之影響。結果顯示指導語倒扣與否對試題鑑別度有影響，對棄答題數亦有影響，但對答對題數、測驗分數內部一致性信度與試題難度則沒有影響。如果測驗的主要目的在於區分考生學科能力的高低，本研究結果建議倒扣是可行方法，但若不期望增加考生的答題壓力，不倒扣可能較為適合。然此結論可能僅適用於物理學科測驗，未來可增加不同學科之研究，以瞭解本研究結論在跨學科上的穩定性。

關鍵字

倒扣計分 ； 能力測驗 ； 猜答 ； 測驗品質 ； 測驗指導語 ； 學科測驗

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of instructions of formula scoring and number-right scoring on test quality on a multiple-choice physics test. Three hundred and thirteen 12-grade students were administered the same test with different instructions. The results indicated that the number of omitted items and the item discrimination index might vary with instructions given. If the main purpose of test use is to discriminate among students of different levels of ability, instructions of formula scoring as used by the Department Required Test for college entrance in Taiwan is recommended. Future research is encouraged to evaluate the generalizability of the present findings to tests on other subjects.

並列關鍵字

ability test ； formula scoring ； guessing ； subject test ； test instructions ； test quality

參考文獻

Aiken, L. R.(1987).Testing with multiple-choice items.Journal of Research and Development in Education.20,44-58.

Airasian, P. W.(1994).Classroom assessment.New York:McGraw-Hill.

Albanese, M. A.(1988).The projected impact of the correction for guessing on individual scores.Journal of Educational Measurement.25,149-157.

Angoff, W. H.(1989).Does guessing really help.Journal of Educational Measurement.26,323-336.

Bliss, L. B.(1980).A test of Lord`s assumption regarding examinee guessing behavior on multiple-choice tests using elementary school students.Journal of Educational Measurement.17,147-153.