IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v80y2015i4p1105-1122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Test-Taking Behavior: Decision Theory Meets Psychometric Theory

Author

Listed:
  • David Budescu
  • Yuanchao Bo

Abstract

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). Copyright The Psychometric Society 2015

Suggested Citation

  • David Budescu & Yuanchao Bo, 2015. "Analyzing Test-Taking Behavior: Decision Theory Meets Psychometric Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1105-1122, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:80:y:2015:i:4:p:1105-1122
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-014-9425-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11336-014-9425-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-014-9425-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    2. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu, 1983. "State of the Art---Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 151-173, February.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Maya Bar-Hillel & David Budescu & Yigal Attali, 2005. "Scoring and keying multiple choice tests: A case study in irrationality," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 4(1), pages 3-12, June.
    8. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    9. R. Darrell Bock, 1972. "Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 29-51, March.
    10. David Thissen & Lynne Steinberg, 1984. "A response model for multiple choice items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 501-519, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexis DIRER, 2020. "Efficient scoring of multiple-choice tests," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2752, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    2. Espinosa Maria Paz & Gardeazabal Javier, 2020. "The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, July.
    3. Merkle, Edgar C. & Steyvers, Mark & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip E., 2017. "A neglected dimension of good forecasting judgment: The questions we choose also matter," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 817-832.
    4. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
    5. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    2. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    4. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    6. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    8. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    9. M.A.L.M. van Assen & C.C.P. Snijders, 2010. "The effect of nonlinear utility on behaviour in repeated prisoner’s dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(3), pages 301-332, August.
    10. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    11. Narat Charupat & Richard Deaves & Travis Derouin & Marcelo Klotzle & Peter Miu, 2013. "Emotional balance and probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 17-41, July.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon, 2023. "Prospect theory’s loss aversion is robust to stake size," Post-Print hal-04126663, HAL.
    13. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Losses loom larger than gains and reference dependent preferences in Bernoulli’s utility function," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 220-237.
    14. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    15. Krčál, Ondřej & Kvasnička, Michal & Staněk, Rostislav, 2016. "External validity of prospect theory: The evidence from soccer betting," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 121-127.
    16. Resende, José Guilherme Lara & Tecles, Patricia Langsch, 2011. "A Simple Method of Elicitation of Preferences under Risk," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 31(2), December.
    17. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2015. "Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 161-187, April.
    18. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    19. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:81-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:80:y:2015:i:4:p:1105-1122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.