A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment

975 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Three Options Are Optimal for Multiple‐Choice Items: A Meta‐Analysis of 80 Years of Research (2005, methodology): “Research on such characteristics might allow us to more clearly articulate Haladyna, Downing, and Rodriguez’ (2002) recommendation to use as many plausible distractors as possible.”
IS HUMOR AN APPRECIATED TEACHING TOOL? PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSORS' TEACHING STYLES AND USE OF HUMOR (2004, methodology): “In their review of multiple choice item-writing guidelines, Haladyna, Downing, and Rodriguez (2002) referred to the review of humor in testing by McMorris, Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo (1997) and judged that “humor is probably a good thing for classroom assessment but only if the overall good exceeds…”
Developing, Analyzing, and Using Distractors for Multiple-Choice Tests in Education: A Comprehensive Review (2017, methodology): “Unlike the studies favoring either logical or numerical ordering of distractors (e.g., Haladyna et al., 2002; Huntley & Welch, 1993), there has also been research highlighting the benefits of randomized ordering for distractors.”