Document Type : Research Paper


Urmia University


Multiple Choice tests are utilized widely in educational assessment because of their objectivity, ease of scoring, and reliability. This study aimed to compare IF and ID of MC vocabulary test items and attempted to find whether these indices are affected by the number of options. To this end, four 20 item stem equivalent vocabulary tests (3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-option MC) were administered to 194 (106 male and 88 female) pre-intermediate students. Besides, an attitude questionnaire was utilized to examine the attitudes of test takers towards MC test format. Results of one-way ANOVA showed that altering number of options in MC tests does not affect Item Discrimination (ID); however, there were significant differences between Item Facility (IF) of 3-, 5-, and 6-option and 4-, 5-, and 6-option MC test but not between 3- and 4-option MC test, suggesting that 6-option test is the most difficult test. Also, the results of questionnaire revealed test takers’ preference towards the use of 3-option MC. Findings demonstrated that increasing the number of options makes a test more difficult and that choosing the right number of option for MC tests is controversial. Testers are recommended to consider various factors while choosing the right number of options.


Alexopoulos, D. S. (2007). Classical test theory. In N. J. Salkind, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 140-143). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chapman, E. (2007). True Score. In N. J. Salkind, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 1014-1016). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Currie, M., & Chiramanee, T. (2010). The effect of the multiple-choice item format on the measurement of knowledge of language structure. Language Testing, 27(4), 471-491. doi: 10.1177/0265532209356790
Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Furnharm, A., Christopher, A., Garwood, J., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Ability, demography, learning style, and personality trait correlates of students’ preference for assessment method. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 15-27.
Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1980). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37–50.
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 999-1010. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053004013
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurment in Education, 15(3), 309-334.
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heaton, J. B. (1990). Writing English language tests. New York: Longman.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1997). Psychological testing: Principles, applications,and issues. Pacific Grove: Cole Publication.
Landrum, R. E., Cashin, J. R., & Theis, K. S. (1993). More evidence in favor of three-option multiple-choice tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 771-778. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003021
Lee, H., & Winkle, P. (2013). The differences among three-, four-, and five-option-item formats in the context of a high-stakes English-language listening test. Language Testing, 30(1), 99-125.
Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. Dordrecht: Springer.
Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1987). What’s wrong with three option multiple-choice items? Educational and Psychological measurement, 47(3), 513-521.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
Rogers, W. T., & Harley, D. (1999). An empirical comparison of three-and four-choice items and tests: Susceptibility to testwiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 234-247. doi: 10.1177/00131649921969820
Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yashima, T., & Yoshizawa, K. (2006). A comparison of three- and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan. Language Testing, 23(1), 35-57. doi: 10.1191/0265532206lt319oa
Simkin, M. G., & Kuechler, W. L. (2005). How well do multiple choice tests evaluate student understanding in computer programming classes? Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 389-399.
Tarrant, M., Ware, J., & Mohammed, A. M. (2009). An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: A descriptive analysis. BioMed Central. Retrieved from
Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2010). A comparison of the Psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today. 30(6), 539-543.
Tozoglu, D., Tozoglu, M. D., Gurses, A., & Dogar, C. (2004). The students' perception: Essay versus multiple-choice type exams. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(6), 52-59.
Vyas, R., & Supe, A. (2008). Multiple choice questions: A literature review on the optimal number of options. The National Medical Journal of India, 21(3), 130-133.
Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The students' perspective. The Journal of Educational Research. 80(6), 352-358.