Score Increase and Partial-Credit Validity When Administering Multiple-Choice Tests Using an Answer-Until-Correct Format
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
There are numerous benefits to answer-until-correct (AUC) approaches to multiple-choice testing, not the least of which is the straightforward allotment of partial credit. However, the benefits of granting partial credit can be tempered by the inevitable increase in test scores and by fears that such increases are further contaminated by a large random guessing component. We have measured the effects of using the immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT), a commercially available AUC response system, on the scores of a typical first-year chemistry multiple-choice test. We find that with a particular commonly used scoring scheme the test scores from IF-AT deployment are 6–7 percentage points higher than from Scantron deployment. This amount is less than that suggested by previous studies, where the mark increase was calculated in a purely post hoc manner and thus neglected affective changes of students’ behavior associated with the IF-AT technique. Furthermore, we have strong evidence that partial credit is awarded in a highly rational manner in accordance with the students’ level of understanding.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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