Practicality Categories of Good Test
                                                                                The multiple choice item is commonly recognized as the most applicable and useful type of objective test item. It can be used to
measure  both  knowledge  outcomes  and  many  types  of  skills.  In addition, it can measure a variety of learning outcomes from simple
to complex material. The  multiplce  choice  item  is  included  in  discrete  point  test.
Discrete  point  test  takes  language  skill  apart.  Oller  states  that, “discrete items attempt to test knowledge of language one bit at a
time.”
50
It  means  that  language  knowledge  can  be  divided  into  a number  or  components,  such  as  grammar,  vocabulary  spelling,
punctuation,  pronunciation,  intonation,  and  stress.  This  test  only measures the knowledge of language in one particular component.
Actually,  it  is  not  too  difficult  for  test  maker  or  teacher  to construct  multiple  choice  item  test.  However,  there  some
suggestions that they shoul consider in constructing this type of test items:
51
a. The  stem  of  the  item  should  be  meaningful  by  itself  and
should show a specific problem. b.
The  item  stem  should  include  as  much  of  the  item  as possible and should be free of irrelevant material.
c. A  negatively  stated  item  stem  can  be  used  only  when
significant outcomes need it. d.
All  of  the  alternatives  should  be  grammatically  consistent with the stem.
e. An item should contain only one clearly correct answer.
f. Items used to measure understanding should contain some
novelty, but beware too much. g.
All distracters should be plausible. h.
Verbal  associations  between  the  stem  and  the  correct answer should be avoided.
i. The relative length of the alternatives should not provide a
clue to the answer. j.
The correct answer should appear in each of the alternative positions and in equal number but in random order.
50
John W. Oller, Language Tests ..., p. 37.
51
Norman E. Gronlund and Robert L. Linn, Measurement and Evaluation ..., p. 177-188.
k. The special alternatives such as “none of the above” or “all
of the above” can be used sparingly. l.
Do not use multiple choice item when other item types are more appropriate.
Although it can be said as the most applicable and useful type of test item, multiple choice item has some limitations, such as:
52
a. The technique tests only recognition knowledge. A multiple
choice  item  gives  a  quite  inaccurate  result  of  students’ ability in productive and receptive skills.
b. Guessing may have a considerable but unknownable effect
on test scores. We never know what part of any individual’s score  comes  through  guessing.  So,  we  cannot  identify  the
truly students’ competence or ability. c.
The  technique  severely  restricts  what  can  be  tested.  The basic  problem  here  is  that  it  requires  distractors,  and  they
are not always available. d.
It  is  very difficult to  write successful  items.  The common faults  fall  on  some  areas  such  as  more  than  one  correct
answer, no correct answer, the obvious clues in the options, ineffective distractors.
e. Backwash  may  be  harmful.  Practice  at  multiple  choice
items  will  not  usually  be  the  best  way  for  students  to improve their command of a language.
f. Cheating may be facilitated. The fact that how to response
on a multiple choice item is so simple makes students easy to communicate each other non-verbally.
Beside  its  limitations,  multiple  choice  item  also  has  some advantages. Wilmar Tinambunan writes the advantages of multiple
choice item as follow:
53
a. The multiple choice item can be used for subject matter content
in  any  different  levels  of  behaviour,  such  as  ability  to  reason, discriminate, interpret, analyze, infer, and solve problems.
b. It has less chance for students to guess the right answer than the
true-false  item  does  because  it  is  followed  by  four  or  five alternatives.
52
Arthur Hughes, Testing for Language ..., p. 76-78.
53
Wilmar Tinambunan, Evaluation of Students ..., p. 75.