The “None of the Above” Option in Multiple-Choice Testing: An Experimental Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors assessed the effects of using "none of the above" as an option in a 40-item, general-knowledge multiple-choice test administered to undergraduate students. Examinees who selected "none of the above" were given an incentive to write the correct answer to the question posed. Using "none of the above" as the keyed option made items much more difficult (d = −1.11). Furthermore, 45% of the time that examinees correctly selected "none of the above," they wrote either a wrong answer (19%) or no answer (26%), and rescoring items to deny credit in these cases caused item discrimination to fall (d = −0.35). Thus, when "none of the above" is the keyed option, credit earned by examinees with knowledge deficiencies can make items appear to have more discriminatory power than is actually the case. The authors recommend that "none of the above" should not be used as an option in multiple-choice items. Keywords: assessmentitem discriminationitem-writing guidelinesmultiple-choicenone of the abovetesting
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it