The Psychological Effect of Errors in Standardized Language Test Items on EFL Students’ Responses to the Following Item
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the psychological effect of a wrong question with wrong items on answering to the next question in a test of structure. Forty students selected through stratified random sampling are given 15 questions of a standardized test namely a TOEFL structure test in which questions number 7 and number 11are wrong and their answers to the next question is being analyzed. Three way ANOVA determines whether the total scores of the students, also their age, and gender affect the students’ responses to the upcoming question or it is just a psychological factor affecting students’ responses. The results showed that only 20 percent provided true answers; among them were only very proficient and proficient students. Age and gender were not considered significant factors in this regard. The correct answers were attributed to their full mastery over the structure and their personality type rather than the psychological factor. Most of the students were psychologically affected by a wrongly given item. Thus, it is suggested that test givers and teachers ignore the wrongly given question and also the upcoming one in order to prevent the psychological factor that makes students provide unsure and false answers to the question.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".