Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antwortformate und Itemtypen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel befasst sich mit verschiedenen Möglichkeiten, wie die Antworten der Testpersonen auf die Testaufgaben/Fragen erfasst und kodiert werden können („Antwortformate“). Daraus ergeben sich verschiedene Itemtypen. Unter Beachtung von Vor- und Nachteilen wird das freie Antwortformat dem gebundenen Antwortformat gegenübergestellt. Bei Letzterem sind vor allem Ordnungs- und Auswahlaufgaben sowie kontinuierliche und diskrete Beurteilungsaufgaben als Itemtypen weitverbreitet. Unter Heranziehung zahlreicher Beispiele werden viele praktische Konstruktionsaspekte thematisiert und unter Bezug auf verschiedene Zielvorgaben diskutiert. Entscheidungshilfen für die Wahl des Aufgabentyps runden das Kapitel ab.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Alwin, D. F. (1992). Information transmission in the survey interview: number of response categories and the reliability of attitude measurement. Sociological Methodology, 22, 83–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D. & Beauducel, A. (2001). I-S-T 2000 R. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D., Holzer, M., Kopp, V. & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Pick-N multiple choice-exams: a comparison of scoring algorithms. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice, 16, 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, N. & Spinath, F. (2014). DESIGMA-Advanced – Design a Matrix-Advanced (Manual). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G. F. (1987) Experiments with the Middle Response Alternatives in Survey Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F. & Williams, B. A. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523–562.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1941). An experimental comparison of the multiple true–false and multiple multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 533–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, E. P. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beuckelaer, A., Toonen, S. & Davidov, E. (2013). On the optimal number of scale points in graded paired comparisons. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2869–2882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, T. L. & Zellinger, P. M. (1980). A comparison of the behaviorally anchored rating mixed standard scale formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N. & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. & Schmidt, K. (2014). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exner, J. E. (2010). Rorschach-Arbeitsbuch für das Comprehensive System: Deutschsprachige Fassung von A Rorschach Workbook for the Comprehensive System – Fifth Edition. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna, T. M. & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 999–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, F. P. & Priester, H. J. (1963). Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenz-Test für Kinder. HAWIK (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. & Betts, L. R. (2010). Four Layouts and a Finding: The effects of changes in the order of the verbal labels and numerical values on Likert-type scales. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henss, R. (1989). Zur Vergleichbarkeit von Ratingskalen unterschiedlicher Kategorienzahl. Psychologische Beiträge, 31, 264–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höft, S. & Funke, U. (2006). Simulationsorientierte Verfahren der Personalauswahl. In H. Schuler (Hrsg.), Lehrbuch der Personalpsychologie. (2. Aufl., S. 145–188). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornke, L. F., Etzel, S. & Rettig, K. (2005). Adaptiver Matrizen Test. Version 24.00. Mödling: Schuhfried.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, J. R. (1998). Timidity as a Response Style to Psychological Questionnaires. Journal of Psychology, 132, 202–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, R. S. & Petermann, F. (Hrsg.) (1999). Psychologische Diagnostik (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T., Kulesa, R., Cho, Y. I. & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles. Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katlon, G., Roberts, J. & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. Statistician, 29, 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krampen, D. (2015). Zur Bedeutung des Testformats für die Testauswertung. Aufgabenstamm- und Antwortabhängigkeiten im C-Test. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D. & Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P. (2010). Positive first or negative first? Effects of the order of answering categories on response behavior. Methodology, 6, 118–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Mitchell, R. C., Presser, S., Ruud, P. A., Smith, V. K., Moody, W. R., Green, M. C. & Conaway, M. (2002). The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 371–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, T. C. M. & Kolic, M. (2008). Effects of semantic incompatibility on rating response. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 248–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, G. & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1944). Reliability of multiple choice tests as a function of number of choices per item. Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1977). Optimal number of choices per item—a comparison of four approaches. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E. & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality & Quantity, 42, 779–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moors, G., Kieruj, N. D. & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). The effect of labeling and numbering of response scales on the likelihood of response bias. Sociological Methodology, 44, 369–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H. & Oehlschlägel, J. (2011). Frankfurter Aufmerksamkeits-Inventar 2 (FAIR-2). Bern, Göttingen: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). PISA 2012 Ergebnisse: Was Schülerinnen und Schüler wissen und können (Band I, überarbeitete Ausgabe): Schülerleistungen in Lesekompetenz, Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, W. D. (2016). Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test ZVT (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petermann, F. & Petermann, U. (Hrsg.) (2011). WISC-IV. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition. Frankfurt am Main: Pearson Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfiffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 258–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S. & Schuman, H. (1980). The measurement of a middle position in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 70–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C. C. & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B. & Krebs, D. (2007). Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? Assessing the Big Five dimensions of personality with different response scales in a dependent sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, W. A., Schweizer, K. & Moosbrugger, H. (2007). Method effects due to social desirability as a parsimonious explanation of the deviation from unidimensionality in LOT-R scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1597–1607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion. (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. & Keppler, M. (1999). Anforderungen an Skalierungsverfahren in der Marktforschung/Ein Vorschlag zur Optimierung. Planung & Analyse, 2, 64–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B. Hippler, H. J., Noelle-Neumann, E. & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales. Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F. & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 38, 368–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms—technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A&B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance test of creative thinking. Revised manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1964). On the optimal number of alternatives at a choice point. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 386–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H. & Verhallen, T. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng, L.-J. (2004). Impact of the Number of Response Categories and Anchor Labels on Coefficient Alpha and Test-retest Reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956–972.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60629, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Helfried Moosbrugger

  2. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, CH-8050, Zürich, Schweiz

    Prof. Dr. Holger Brandt

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Helfried Moosbrugger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Holger Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helfried Moosbrugger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany

    Helfried Moosbrugger

  2. Methodenzentrum, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Augustin Kelava

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moosbrugger, H., Brandt, H. (2020). Antwortformate und Itemtypen. In: Moosbrugger, H., Kelava, A. (eds) Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-61531-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-61532-4

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation