This paper applies deductive logic to the structure and outcomes of objective questions. When all terms are clearly defined and deductive logic is correctly used, then the results must be true, even if they are surprising or counter-intuitive. The defined premises are 1) student’s true knowledge, 2) student’s false knowledge, 3) student’s admitted ignorance and 4) student’s level of risk aversion. Definitions for 5) correct answer, 6) wrong answer, and 7) abstain are also needed. Some logical processes are numerical and involve simple equations. The main outcomes include: i) the standard scoring of correct answers, the number of wrong answers and the number of abstain can result from varying levels of true knowledge, false knowledge and admitted ignorance; ii) the level of risk aversion is measured by the proportion of answers where the student abstains from answering. High risk aversion lowers standard score, but this effect can be easily corrected.
References
[1]
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, A. (2000). Taxonomy of Teaching and Learning: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Educational Psychology, 479-480.
[2]
Bloom, B. S. (1972). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. New York: Mackay.
[3]
Burton, R. F. (2002). Misinformation, Partial Knowledge and Guessing in True/False Tests. Medical Education, 36, 805-811.
Burton, R. F. (2004). Multiple Choice and True/False Tests: Reliability Measures and Some Implications of Negative Marking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 585-595.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689153
[5]
Dugdale, A. (2013). Towards More Efficient Assessments: Increasing Information from Objective Examinations. Creative Education, 4, 39-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.46A007
[6]
Dugdale, A. (2015). The Forgotten Dimension: The Information Content of Objective Questions. Creative Education, 6, 1760-1767.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.616178
[7]
Dugdale, A. E., Chandler, D., & Baghurst, K. (1979). Knowledge and Belief in Nutrition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 32, 441-445.
[8]
Ebel, J. (1968) Blind Guessing in Objective Achievement Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 321-325.
Fellows, K. K., & Farah, M. J. (2003). Ventromedial Frontal Cortex Mediates Affective Shifting in Humans: Evidence from a Reversal Learning Paradigm. Brain, 126, 1830-1837.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg180
[10]
Kelly, S., & Dennick, R. (2009). Evidence of Gender Bias in True-False-Abstain Medical Examinations. BMC Medical Education, 9, 32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-32
[11]
Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and Memory: The Creation of New Memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118, 100-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.100
[12]
Roediger III, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The Positive and Negative Consequences of Multiple Choice Testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 1155-1159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155
[13]
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Post-Examination Analysis of Objective Tests. Medical Teacher, 33, 447-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682
[14]
Van der Vleutin, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, I. W. T., Muitjens, A. M. M., Thoben, A. J. N. M., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & van Boven, C. P. A. (2004). Cross Institutional Collaboration in Assessment: A Case on Progress Testing. Medical Teacher, 26, 719-725.