Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

c r-
’
,
L-
.’ ./’
/ :‘..
problem with such an assumption is that there i.8 virtually no satiafsctory
research defining creativeness. Usually the peopie GAO Gcore high on co
call.ed “creativity” test6 arc simply the one0 we call creative. In fact,
there is considerable evidence to indicate that creativity testd are not
actually measuring creativity as a pereonality trait (Thorndike, 1463).
There is no evidence from carefully conducted and logically interpreted
research to indicate that objective teats stifle the creative person.
Hoffmann’s charge ie what he thinks should be fact rather than research
data, In other words, Eoffnann ha8 the idea that merely because multiplechoice
tests are highly structured, the exminee has no opportunity to
expr.?ss himself. Nothing could be further fros the truth, but the degree
to h%ich the examinee ten express his knowledge depends on the skill and
the data of the test writer.
In his second assumption, Hoffmann states that multiple choice tests,
1, . ..penalize the candidate uho perceives subtle points unnoticed by less
able people including the test makers. They are apt to be superficial
and intellectually dishonest with questions made artifically difficult
by means of ambiguity because genuinely searching questions did not
readily fit into the rmrltiple choice format.” In this assumption the
great amount of careful research actually going into the construction
and validation of a teet item is cmpletely ignored. Natur.tlly, distr8ctor6
are written purposely to “fool” the less knowledgeable examil.se.
Information about the responses to iterns made by persons of different
levels of knowledge indicates wlthout a doubt that the degree of ambiguity
perceived by an exuainee is inversely related to his knowledge of the
subject matter. ‘fiftl simply means that the less one knows the more
ambiguoue the question appears. Yet, HoffmaM states (p. 67), “The more
one knows about the subject the rare glaring the a;tilguitice become.”
Qf course Hoffmann dccs not support hie assumption vith evidence;
nevertheless, this charge is the one wit.h which we are most often hit.
He says that the most serious consequence of test ambiguity is that it
penalizes the gifted and talented examinee. In Hoffmann’s view, how does
this discrimination occur? When first confronted with the alternative
answers to a question, the “deep” examinee, as Hoffrrann calls the gifted
and talented, analyzes the alternatives more carefu2ly than does the
l’superficialt’ exnminee. Naturally, such careful scrutinizing takes time,
and :-Be first penalty occurs, Secondly, the “deep” student is much more
likely to perceive the rrmbiguitlee and, as a result, spends more time
trying to determine exactly what the teat author had in mind. Furthermore,
according to Hoffmann, the “deep” examince’s motivation to perform
well tends to be reduced as he sees more clearly the superficiality and
ineptness of the test writer’s approach. Even nore damaging, the gifted
examinee is more likely to discover a “better” alternative than the keyed
reeponse.
%
174
.
-____-- - _.
.
.
.