[IPAC-List] Appealed Items

Klus, Thomas M. Thomas.Klus at fairfaxcounty.gov
Tue Oct 18 08:11:27 EDT 2016

We have a formal item review process for candidate appeals as well, but the final decision on appeals in our jurisdiction is made by either an Assistant Chief (acting for the Fire Chief) or with PD, a Major (acting for the Chief). We had this situation recently  where a distractor that was originally keyed correct seemed correct from a rational perspective, but the review committee found another response was “more correct” based on the published bibliography, so the AC went with your second option. I raised the concern that those who originally selected the first keyed response did not really have an opportunity to present a case in an appeal as they thought that they got the item right. The objection was overruled, and while I can see the merit in selecting “the most correct answer”, I could also see a logical scenario where you would count both answers correct and double key the question.

Thomas Klus
Thomas Klus
Department of Human Resources, Employment Division
Fairfax County Government

From: Dennis Doverspike [mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:44 PM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
Subject: [IPAC-List] Appealed Items

You are working for a city producing the final scoring key for a test. An item has been appealed where the original best answer was "A." The test review committee considers an appeal that "B" is the best answer, and agrees that "B" is the best answer. This was not simply a typo or miscoding, the original item writer believed that A was the best answer.
Do you:
1. Score A and B as correct; award one point for each.
2. Only score B as correct, counting A as being wrong.
3. Delete or throw out the item.
4. Give credit to all responses, A, B, C, and D.
5. Other
Does your jurisdiction have a stated or understood practice for handling such situations?
Do you have a rationale for your practice.
Please feel free to elaborate. Consultants, feel free to offer your usual practice.

Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)
Independent Consultant
Professor of Psychology, University of Akron
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com<mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com>

The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20161018/023a2d5a/attachment.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list