CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyEducational Technology and Assessment

The influence of distractor strength and response order on MCQ responding

Kiat, John Emmanuel, Ong, Ai Rene, Ganesan, Asha·2018·Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1080/01443410.2017.1349877
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) play a key role in standardised testing and in-class assessment. Research into the influence of within-item response order on MCQ characteristics has been mixed. While some researchers have shown preferential selection of response options presented earlier in the answer list, others have failed to replicate these results. This paper investigates a possible explanation for these mixed findings by assessing the influence of distractor strength on MCQ response order effects. A real-world assessment was administered to 232 undergraduates in which the response order within items was systematically varied. A generalised multilevel model was then used to show a significant interaction between distractor strength and response position with regard to response behaviour. Furthermore, the effect was found to be independent of student ability. These findings have implications for MCQ test construction, minimising the negative consequences of MCQ test exposure and promoting improved test-taking strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01443410.2017.1349877

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kiat, J. E., Ong, A. R., & Ganesan, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Department of Psychology, HUC Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • University of Northern Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Kiat, John Emmanuel
ORCID
Venue
Educational Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-07-07
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
368-380
ISSN
  • 0144-3410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5820
DOI
10.1080/01443410.2017.1349877
OpenAlex
W2724927016
Cited by
15
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
multiple-choice questions, response order effects, test-taking strategies, test development, student ability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review