Objective Tests

The major drawback of objective tests is that bad items are so easy to construct. By "bad items" I mean items which can be answered on the basis of factual knowledge or common sense alone, or else are so ambiguous that no correct answer is possible. Items of the type—

"Freud was a(n)

1. Experimental psychologist.

2. Psychoanalyst.

3. Ethologist.

4. Marine biologist."

are worse than useless: they are an insult to the student's intelligence and imagination.

Nevertheless, attention to the rules of test-construction can produce items which sample the quality of thought as well as a wide range of types of knowledge. To illustrate this point I have taken several examples from Paul Dressel's Evaluation in Higher Education, a book which should be compulsory reading for all lecturers and examiners. The first example is intended to test knowledge of methodology:

"Of the following, which represents the most important difference between the scientific method as used in the social sciences and as used in the physical sciences?

1.	Study of the developmental aspects of various problems.
2.	Necessity of regarding hypotheses as tentative in nature.
3.	Importance of understanding the problem of causation.
4.	Necessity of recognising the value judgements of the investigator."

The correct answer is (4).

It is obvious that the specific facts which are required in "thought" items should not be spoon fed to the student. This is illustrated by the following item, intended to elicit the extent to which facts support a generalisation:

"The prices of practically all consumer goods and services in 1950 were 50 to 100 per cent higher than they were in 1939. This fact most clearly supports which of the following generalisations?

1.	Factory workers were better off in 1950 than in 1939.
2.	Persons with fixed incomes were economically worse off in 1950 than in 1939.
3.	Profits were a higher percentage of national income in 1950 than in 1939.
4.	People bought fewer consumer goods in 1950 than in 1939."

Here the correct answer can be determined by logically eliminating each of the alternatives for which the fact does not provide sufficient evidence; it is (2).

Both content knowledge and reasoning are required to answer the following item:

"Assume that over a ten-year period consumer purchases had dropped from 75% to 65% of the G.N.P., and that investment and net exports had remained the same, proportionately. On the basis of this information alone, we can be certain that—

1.	Total expenditures had declined, percentage-wise.
2.	The size of the G.N.P. had declined.
3.	Government spending had increased, percentage-wise.
4.	The size of disposable income had declined.
5.	Personal savings had increased, percentage-wise."

The correct answer is (3).

It will be obvious from these examples that it is possible to do a great deal more with objective tests to supplement other forms of assessment, and Dressells book includes sample items for the social sciences, the natural sciences, and the humanities.

Half-way between the essay and the objective test is the so-called "take-home test." This instrument may perhaps seem more useful as a teaching aid than as a method of assessment; it is most popular in mathematics, where problems may be set each page 5week. Its use in other disciplines is probably limited, but an ingenious teacher could, for example, devise problems in the social sciences, requiring short answers, and emphasising a particular point. Consider the following:

"People who are prejudiced against one ethnic group tend to be prejudiced against others.

Find one study which attempts to provide evidence relevant to this hypothesis and summarise it in 200 words or less."

The actual quality of this type of test is generally less important than the mere performance of the task: however, lecturers should try to avoid overloading their students with relatively trivial assignments.

The third major instrument, observation of behavioural performance, involves the student in actual participation in activities relevant to his discipline. In some subjects this may be only a matter of engaging in tutorials or debates, but practical work plays an increasing part in many subjects —field trips, social surveys, experiments, and so on. Often these are thrust upon the student with minimal supervision, and no attempt is made to assess anything but the final report.