Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tallmadge, G. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tallmadge, G. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Correction for Guessing

A Case in Which Its Use Made Treatment Effects Appear Larger Than They Really Were

G. Kasten Tallmadge

RMC Research Corporation

There are many situations in which the so-called correction for guessing does not fulfill its intended function. One such situation that has received little, if any, attention in the literature occurs when test takers who have nothing to gain from scoring well respond randomly to questions they could have answered correctly had they tried. Under such circumstances, the raw score is likely to underestimate the test takers' true abilities. Applications of the correction for guessing will only exacerbate the problem that already exists. If random responding is more prevalent in the control than in the treatment group, the correction for guessing will inflate treatment-effect estimates that may already be spuriously high.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 6, No. 6, 837-841 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8200600609
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?