<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0 http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/tei/xsd/tei_P5.xsd">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>
        </title>
        <author>
        </author>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>Text encoded by</resp>
          <name>Digital Collections</name>
        </respStmt>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <distributor>East Carolina University. J. Y. Joyner Library</distributor>
        <address>
          <addrLine>Digital Collections</addrLine>
          <addrLine>Joyner Library, East Carolina University</addrLine>
          <addrLine>East Fifth Street, Greenville NC 27858-4353 USA</addrLine>
        </address>
        <date>2012</date>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <encodingDesc>
      <samplingDecl>
        <p>All quotation marks retained as data.</p>
        <p>All end-of-line hyphens have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.</p>
        <p>All smart quotes have been converted into straight quotes.</p>
      </samplingDecl>
      <classDecl>
        <taxonomy xml:id="LCSH">
          <bibl>Library of Congress Subject Headings</bibl>
        </taxonomy>
      </classDecl>
    </encodingDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <creation>
        <date>
        </date>
      </creation>
      <langUsage xml:lang="en-US">
        <language ident="en-US" usage="100">English</language>
      </langUsage>
      <textClass>
        <keywords scheme="#LCSH">
          <list>
            <item>
            </item>
          </list>
        </keywords>
      </textClass>
    </profileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div type="other">
        <p rend="align(centerbold)">[This text is machine generated and may contain errors.]</p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0001" />
        <p>Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 50. © Southern Universities Press 1967<lb /><lb />COURSES IN PSYCHOLOGY AND STUDENTST ATTITUDES<lb />TOWARD MENTAL ILLNESS<lb /><lb />CALVERT R. DIXON<lb /><lb />East Carolina College, Greenville<lb /><lb />In an earlier study of attitudes toward mental illness, Costin and Kerr (1962) dem-<lb />onstrated that a course in abnormal psychology brought about more favorable attitudes of<lb />students toward mental illness and mentally ill people, as measured on the Opinions About<lb />Mental Illness Scale (OMI; Cohen &amp; Struening, 1959). As their results differed from<lb />those reported by Cohen and Struening for a sample of hospital employees (1959), they<lb />suggested the futility of certain educational programs in mental hygiene. Doubting the<lb />effect of short indoctrinational programs in producing attitude changes, these investigators<lb />suggested that programs be subjected to origorous research scrutinyT before they are em-<lb />ployed.<lb /><lb />The purpose of the present study was to compare OMI scores of students with differ-<lb />ent major areas of study while enrolled in psychology courses. The scale was administered<lb />to students in six different classes in child development, adolescence, and mental hygiene.<lb />The 167 underclassmen were classified then into five major groups (Nursing, N = 19;<lb />Grammar Education, N = 37; Science, N = 24; Social Studies, N = 20; and Primary<lb />Education, N = 67) and an analysis of covariance of the post-course scores with the pre-<lb />course scores as a covariant was performed to discover changes in attitudes of members in<lb />different psychology classes as well as changes in attitudes of students majoring in various<lb />academic fields.<lb /><lb />The mean differences (¢ tests) suggest that courses in psychology bring about some<lb />favorable changes in studentsT attitudes toward mental illness. Nursing majorsT scores in-<lb />dicated greater post-course authoritarianism (p  .05); a high score for this attitude indi-<lb />cates that mentally ill people are stigmatized, dangerous, and immoral. Grammar Educa-<lb />tion (p  .05), Science (p  .05), and Social Studies majors demonstrated favorable<lb />changes in Mental Hygiene Ideology (p  .01), suggesting that the mentally ill be treated<lb />with paternalism. Primary Education majorsT scores indicated favorable changes in Inter-<lb />personal Etiology (p  .01), suggesting that early love deprivation is the forerunner of<lb />mental illness. Change scores of one class in adolescent psychology indicated greater post-<lb />course authoritarianism (p  .05). Two classes, child (p  .05) and adolescent (p <lb />.01) psychology, demonstrated favorable changes in Mental Hygiene Ideology, reflecting a<lb />belief in the mental hygiene movement and the successful treatment of mental illness.<lb />Two classes, child (pb  .01) and mental hygiene (p  .05), showed favorable changes<lb />in Interpersonal Etiology.<lb /><lb />Later interviews with instructors indicated that the changes in attitudes were more<lb />closely related to the teacherTs position than to the material covered in the text. For instance,<lb />students who began the course with a strong authoritarian attitude and were taught by an<lb />authoritative instructor retained their authoritative attitude while, at the same time, chang-<lb />ing their attitude in a desirable direction toward mental illness and the mentally ill. Fur--<lb />ther indication of the teacher's effect on studentsT attitude change was demonstrated by the<lb />classes in child psychology and mental hygiene where emphasis was placed upon the inter-<lb />relationship of early deprivation and mental illness. It is conceivable then that the ob-<lb />served changes are related to the activities of an instructor rather than to the content of<lb />the text.<lb /><lb />REFERENCES<lb />COHEN, J., &amp; STRUENING, E. L. Factors underlying opinions about mental illness in the<lb /><lb />personnel of a large mental hospital. Amer. Psychologist, 1959, 14, 339. (Ab-<lb />stract )<lb /><lb />COSTIN, F., &amp; KERR, W.D. The effects of an abnormal psychology course on studentsT at-<lb />titudes toward mental illness. J. educ. Psychol., 1962, 53, 214-218.<lb /><lb />Accepted December 20, 1966.</p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0002" />
        <p>Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 1239-1243. © Southern Universities Press 1966<lb /><lb />DEPENDENCE OF RELIABILITY OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE TESTS UPON<lb />NUMBER OF CHOICES PER ITEM: PREDICTION FROM THE<lb />SPEARMAN-BROWN FORMULA!<lb /><lb />DONALD W. ZIMMERMAN RICHARD H. WILLIAMS<lb /><lb />East Carolina College Educational Testing Service<lb /><lb />AND GRAHAM J. BURKHEIMER<lb />East Carolina College<lb /><lb />Summary"An equation is derived which expresses test reliability as a<lb />function of number of item alternatives for the case in which only error due to<lb />guessing is present. This result is compared with the modified Spearman-Brown<lb />equation given by H. H. Remmers and his associates. Reliability coefficients<lb />predicted by these equations are compared with coefficients generated by a com-<lb />puter simulation method.<lb /><lb />It has been known for some time that the reliability of multiple-choice tests<lb />is influenced by the number of choices per item (Remmers, Karslake &amp; Gage,<lb />1940; Lord, 1944; Carroll, 1945; Plumlee, 1952). Since the probability of<lb />chance success on an item is 1/a, where a is the number of choices per item, it<lb />is to be expected that error variance introduced by chance success is a decreasing<lb />function of number of choices and test reliability is an increasing function of<lb /><lb />number of choices.<lb /><lb />Remmers and his associates suggested the relationship could be described<lb />by the Spearman-Brown formula, which is known to indicate increase in reliabil-<lb />ity with increase in test length. The formula is<lb /><lb />tnoo = Mfoo/|1 + (wm "1) fool , [1]<lb /><lb />where 7, is the original reliability, 7,9. is the reliability of the test of increased<lb />length, and 7 is the number of times the test is increased in length. Remmers<lb />showed empirically that the reliability of various tests is approximated by this<lb />function, when # refers to increase in number of choices instead of test length.<lb />It has been pointed out, however, that there is no theoretical basis for predicting<lb />this result (Lord, 1944; Guilford, 1950; Gulliksen, 1950).<lb /><lb />COMPUTER SIMULATED RESULTS<lb /><lb />In a previous paper (Zimmerman &amp; Williams, 1965) a computer program<lb />was used to simulate guessing error in multiple-choice tests. Distributions of as-<lb />sumed true scores were prepared, and error scores were generated on the basis of<lb />the probabilities to be expected from chance success due to guessing. The error<lb />scores were added to true scores to obtain observed scores. Finally, product-<lb />moment correlations between different sets of observed scores obtained by re-<lb />peating the procedure several times gave an indication of test reliability.<lb /><lb />TThis research was supported by a grant (OEC2-7-068209-0389) from the U. S. Office of<lb />Education.<lb /></p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0003" />
        <p>1240 D. W. ZIMMERMAN, ET AL.<lb /><lb />The results of this procedure for tests differing in length and number of<lb />choices are shown in Table 1. The data in this table can be used to examine the<lb />effect of increased test length, as well as increased number of choices, upon reli-<lb />ability. Apparently, there is an interaction between the effects of test length<lb /><lb />TABLE 1<lb />COMPUTER SIMULATED RESULTS FOR RELIABILITY<lb />: N= 10 N= 10 N = 100 N = 100<lb />fy see! Gm 4222 Zo 5<lb />roo* 44 74 89 97<lb />root * 7 89 97<lb />foge*? .76 AF<lb />foot *** .66 95<lb /><lb />*Reliability given by computer program.<lb /><lb />**Reliability given by substituting .44 or .74 in Equation [1].<lb /><lb />***Reliability given by substituting .44 or .89 in Equation [5].<lb /><lb />****Reliability given by substituting .44 or .89 in Equation [1], where 7 = 2.5.<lb /><lb />and number of choices. For short tests (N = 10) reliability increases greatly<lb />with increase in number of choices (.44 to .74). For long tests (N = 100) re-<lb />liability increases slightly with number of choices (.89 to .97). Also, for 2<lb />choices, reliability increases greatly with test length (.44 to .89). And for 5<lb />choices reliability increases to a lesser degree with test length (.74 to .97).<lb /><lb />From the table it is seen that the Spearman-Brown formula describes the<lb />increase in reliability with increase in test length for both the 2-choice test and<lb />the 5-choice test (Zimmerman &amp; Williams, in press). Consider, now, Rem-<lb />metsT suggestion that the same formula describes increase in reliability with in-<lb />crease in number of choices. The results in the table show that there is a greater<lb />discrepancy, although the predicted value for the longer test is close to that indi-<lb />cated by the program.<lb /><lb />INCREASED RELIABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF INCREASED<lb />NUMBER OF CHOICES<lb />It is possible to derive a simple equation showing the effect of increasing<lb />the number of choices upon reliability for the case in which only error due to<lb />guessing is present. Reliability is given by<lb /><lb />foo = [(@"1)5:]/[(2a"1)s2£+N"T], [2]<lb /><lb />where a is the number of choices, s;7 is the variance of true scores, N is the num-<lb />ber of items, and T is the mean of true scores. This equation gives the value<lb />which is approximated by the computer simulation method described above<lb />(Burkheimer, 1965; Burkheimer, Zimmerman, &amp; Williams, in press). When the<lb />number of choices is increased, we can write</p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0004" />
        <p>RELIABILITY OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE TESTS<lb /><lb />fee = [(e " L)sA/[ ~ 1)s2 4+ N "TI , [3]<lb /><lb />whete 7, is the reliability for the test with increased number of choices, a is the<lb />original number of choices, aT is the increased number of choices, and the other<lb />symbols are as defined above. Solving [2] for 5,7 gives<lb /><lb />sP®= [(N "T) rool/[(@a"1) (1 " Poo) ] -<lb /><lb />Substituting this result in (3) and simplifying, we have<lb /><lb />fooT = [(a@ " 1) rool/[(#@ "1) + (4@"2@) fool .<lb /><lb />The data presented in Table 1 show that substitution in this equation yields re-<lb />sults close to those indicated by the computer program. The accuracy is greater<lb />than that obtained by using [1] and of the same order as that obtained by using<lb />[1] for increased test length.<lb /><lb />If the method employed by Remmers were valid, the ratio aT/a would be<lb />comparable to ? in [1], which could be written in this form:<lb /><lb />rooT = [(a'/a) roo] /{1 + [(a/a) " 1]roo} . [6]<lb /><lb />Simplifying, we obtain the following result<lb /><lb />fooT == BToo/ (a+ (a " 4) Tool ; [7]<lb /><lb />which can be compared to [5]. It is seen, therefore, that equation [5] differs<lb />from the modification of the Spearman-Brown formula suggested by Remmers<lb />only by subtraction of 1 from the a@T factor in the numerator and the 4 term in<lb />the denominator. If both aT and a were large [1| and |5| would give nearly the<lb />same results. For multiple-choice tests, however, aT and a are relatively small,<lb />and some discrepancy can be expected.<lb /><lb />Dividing both numerator and denominator of [5] by a " 1 gives<lb /><lb />tooT = [(aT " 1) /(a " 1) roo] /{[(a " 1)/(a "1)] + [(aT " a) /(a " 1) Jroof - [8]<lb /><lb />If, now, we define A as the ratio (a " 1)/(a" 1) and simplify, we have<lb /><lb />foo = Afoo/ [1 ot (A on 1) roo] T . [9]<lb /><lb />which has the same form as the Spearman-Brown formula. In other words, Rem-<lb />mersT suggestion is valid if we employ the ratio (aT " 1)/(a " 1) in the Spear-<lb />man-Brown formula, but not if we employ the ratio aT/a. It should be noted<lb />that the above equations apply only to the case in which differences in reliability<lb />result from chance success due to guessing.</p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0005" />
        <p>
          <lb />
          <lb />1242 D. W. ZIMMERMAN, ET AL.<lb /><lb />DEPENDENCE OF CORRELATION BETWEEN ERROR SCORES ON<lb />PARALLEL FORMS UPON NUMBER OF CHOICES<lb /><lb />It is of interest that an equation showing the dependence of the correlation<lb />between error scores on parallel forms of a test upon number of choices can also<lb />be derived. This quantity has been assumed to be zero in the classical theory of<lb />mental tests. However, when chance success due to guessing is present, as in the<lb />case of most multiple-choice tests, it can be shown that it is positive in value, that<lb />it decreases with number of choices, and that the relationship is indicated by an<lb />equation similar to [5].<lb /><lb />Correlation between error scores on parallel forms is in fact given by the fol-<lb />lowing equation:<lb /><lb />reo = 5P/[s° + (a2"1)(N"T)], [10]<lb />where the symbols are as defined above (Burkheimer, 1965; Burheimer, Zimmer-<lb />man, &amp; Williams, in press). When number of choices is increased, we can write<lb /><lb />tee = 52/[s2 + (@ "1)(N"T)]. [11]<lb /><lb />Solving [10] for s,° gives<lb /><lb />$8 [ree (@"-D(N=T)Y (1 "re). [12]<lb /><lb />Substituting [12] in [11] and simplifying leads to this result:<lb /><lb />fooT =z (4 " 1) Fee/[(@ " 1) " (2 " @) ree] - [13]<lb /><lb />Dividing both numerator and denominator of [13] by a " 1 gives<lb /><lb />TeeT =[(4"1) (a " 1)reel/{[ (a " 1)/(# " 1)] + [C2 "@)/(a " 1) ree} . [14]<lb />If we define B = 1/A = (a " 1)/(a@ " 1) and simplify, we have<lb /><lb />Veo = Bree/|1 + (B noe 1) ree] T [15]<lb /><lb />which, again, has the same form as the Spearman-Brown formula. There exists<lb />no analogue of this equation in the classical theory of mental tests. From [13]<lb />and [15] it is clear that the degree of correlation between error scores on parallel<lb />forms decreases with increase in the number of choices.<lb /><lb />The results given by the computer program for 7¢, are shown in Table 2.<lb />Equation [13] predicts accurately the effect of increasing number of choices<lb />upon f¢. Another fact of interest shown in the table is that, if 7,. is treated as<lb />a reliability coefficient, the Spearman-Brown formula indicates accurately the<lb />change in its value with change in test length (Zimmerman &amp; Williams, in<lb />press). For longer tests the correlation between error scores on parallel forms<lb /></p>
        <pb facs="00079319_0006" />
        <p>RELIABILITY OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE TESTS 1243<lb /><lb />TABLE 2<lb /><lb />COMPUTER SIMULATED RESULTS FOR CORRELATION<lb />BETWEEN ERROR SCORES ON PARALLEL FORMS<lb /><lb />N= 10 "ieee | N = 100 N= 100<lb /><lb />a=2 ete 2"7 79<lb />feo* A6 a7 .89 65<lb />Vest ?"? 90 .67<lb />foc*** 18 .66<lb /><lb />*Value given by computer program.<lb />** Value given by substituting .46 or .17 in Equation [1].<lb />*** Value given by substituting .46 or .89 in Equation [13].<lb /><lb />becomes higher in value, and the degree of change is indicated by the Spearman-<lb />Brown formula.<lb /><lb />When chance success due to guessing is the only source of error in a multi-<lb />ple-choice test, the following can be concluded. (1) Increase in reliability with<lb />increase in number of choices is indicated only approximately by the Spearman-<lb />Brown formula. (2) Increase in reliability with increase in number of choices<lb />is indicated to a higher degree of accuracy by Equations [5] and [9]. (3) In-<lb />crease in reliability with increase in test length is indicated accurately by the<lb />Spearman-Brown formula. (4) Increase in correlation between error scores on<lb />parallel forms with increase in test length is indicated accurately by substituting<lb />this quantity in place of the reliability coefficent in the Spearman-Brown formula.<lb />(5) Increase in correlation between error scores on parallel forms with increase<lb />in number of choices is given by Equations [13] and [15].<lb /><lb />REFERENCES<lb /><lb />BURKHEIMER, G. J. Some effects of non-independent error in multiple-choice tests: a<lb />binomial model. Unpublished M.A. thesis, East Carolina College, Greenville, N. C.,<lb />1965.<lb /><lb />BURKHEIMER, G. J., ZIMMERMAN, D. W., &amp; WILLIAMS, R. H. The maximum reliability<lb />of a multiple-choice test as a function of number of items, number of choices, and<lb />group heterogeneity. J. exp. Educ., in press.<lb /><lb />CARROLL, J. B. The effect of difficulty and chance success on correlations between items<lb />or between tests. Psychometrika, 1945, 10, 1-19.<lb /><lb />GUILFORD, J. P. Psychometric methods. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.<lb /><lb />GULLIKSEN, H. Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.<lb /><lb />Lorb, F. M. Reliability of multiple-choice tests as a function of number of choices per<lb />item. J. educ. Psychol., 1944, 35, 175-180.<lb /><lb />PLUMLEE, L. B. The effect of difficulty and chance success on item-test correlation and<lb />on test reliability. Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 69-86.<lb /><lb />REMMERS, H. H., KARSLAKE, R., &amp; GAGE, N. L. Reliability of multiple-choice measur-<lb />ing instruments as a function of the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula: I. J.<lb />educ. Psychol., 1940, 31, 583-590. :<lb /><lb />ZIMMERMAN, D. W., &amp; WILLIAMS, R. H. Chance success due to guessing and non-<lb />independence of true scores and error scores in multiple-choice tests: computer<lb />trials with prepared distributions. Psychol. Rep., 1965, 17, 159-165.<lb /><lb />ZIMMERMAN, D. W., &amp; WILLIAMS, R. H. Generalization of the Spearman-Brown<lb />formula for test reliability: the case of non-independence of true scores and error<lb />scores. Brit. J. math. statist. Psychol., in press.<lb /><lb />Accepted November 7, 1966.</p>
      </div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>