RESUMEN
It is generally acknowledged that alternatives such as none of the above and all of the above should be used sparingly in multiple-choice (MC) items. But the effect that all of the above has on the reliability and validity of an MC item is unclear. This study compared the results of a single-response (SRa) item format that included all of the above as the correct response to a multiple-response (MR) item format that required examinees to select all of the available alternatives for a correct response. A crossover design was used to compare the effect of formats on student performance while item content, scoring method, and student ability levels remained constant. Results indicated that the SRa format greatly distorted examinee performance by elevating their scores because examinees who recognized two or more alternatives as being correct were cued to select all of the above. In addition, the SRa format significantly reduced the reliability and concurrent validity of examinee scores. In summary, the MR format was found to be superior. Based upon new empirical evidence, this study recommends that whenever an educator wishes to evaluate student understanding of an issue that has multiple facts, the SRa format should be avoided and the MR format should be used instead.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación Educacional/métodos , Alberta , Análisis de Varianza , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudiantes de EnfermeríaRESUMEN
The relationship between the Myers-briggs Type Indicator and Gregorc Style Delineator, and achievement was examined by administering these instruments to 259 first-year nursing students enrolled in an introductory human anatomy and physiology course. A principal component factor analysis using a varimax rotation of the scores from the two psychometric instruments, achievement examinations and an over-all grade point average indicated that each learning style from the Gregorc Style Delineator corresponds to certain traits on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. An individual who had a preference for the learning style of Concrete Sequential tended to have the traits of sensing and judging on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, while an individual who used the learning style of Concrete Random tended to have the traits of intuition and perceiving on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. One who had a preference for the learning style of Abstract Sequential tended to use the trait of thinking while another who used the learning style of Abstract Random tended to have the trait of feeling. The factor analysis also indicates no relationship of any scores of the traits on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or learning styles of the Gregorc Style Delineator with the examination scores achieved in the human anatomy and physiology course or to the students' over-all grade point average. However, factor analysis indicates that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator traits of Judging vs Perceiving collapsed into the Sensing vs Intuition scale, and that the Gregorc Style Delineator consists of two bipolar scales that are different from those proposed by Gregorc.
Asunto(s)
Logro , Inventario de Personalidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudiantes de Enfermería/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anatomía/educación , Educación en Enfermería , Análisis Factorial , Femenino , Humanos , Individualidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fisiología/educación , PsicometríaRESUMEN
The results from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which identified preferred psychological traits for 131 nursing students, were compared to their usage levels of course objectives in an undergraduate course in anatomy and physiology. The three usage levels (user, occasional user, and nonuser) were also compared to exam scores in the course, overall grade point averages (GPA) in first-year nursing, and the various psychological traits measured by the MBTI. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that users of objectives achieved significantly higher exam scores and maintained a higher GPA than occasional and nonusers. The MANOVA also indicated that users of course objectives preferred a sensing judging modality, whereas nonusers preferred an intuiting perceiving style to guide their studying and learning.
Asunto(s)
Anatomía/educación , Evaluación Educacional , Inventario de Personalidad , Fisiología/educación , Estudiantes de Enfermería/psicología , Análisis de Varianza , Humanos , Valor Predictivo de las PruebasRESUMEN
Results from the Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD), administered to 260 undergraduate nursing students, were compared with achievement scores in a human anatomy and physiology course. Factor analysis and VARIMAX rotation demonstrate that there is no relationship between any of the four learning styles allegedly identified by the GSD and achievement in anatomy and physiology. Factor analysis also shows that the GSD measures only a single bipolar scale of sequential vs. random ability rather than two bipolar scales comprising four learning styles, as suggested by Gregorc. These findings question the validity of the GSD and recommend discontinuing its use as an indicator of learning styles.
Asunto(s)
Anatomía/educación , Evaluación Educacional , Aprendizaje , Fisiología/educación , Análisis de Varianza , Análisis Factorial , Humanos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pruebas Psicológicas , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
Results from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for 259 nursing students were compared with their achievement on examinations in an undergraduate course in anatomy and physiology. Factor analysis demonstrated that no relationship existed between any of the eight individual personality traits purported to be measured by MBTI (i.e., E, Extrovert; I, Introvert; S, Sensing; N, Intuition; T, Thinking; F, Feeling; J, Judging; P, Perceiving) and examination scores in this course. The analysis also showed that the bipolar scales S vs. N and J vs. P collapsed into a single bipolar scale (S/J vs. N/P). This means that the MBTI is only capable of measuring three bipolar scales of personality traits instead of four scales as currently claimed. Contrary to other findings, results from an analysis of variance revealed no meaningful relationship between course achievement and psychological types.