Testwiseness

Nature and Characteristics

There are three common schools of thought regarding testwiseness; one perspective views it simply as a source of variance in test scores, a second argues that it is a persistent trait of the examinee, and yet a third suggests a synthesis of these two approaches. Testwiseness is thought to exist independently of general cognitive ability, but it has also been linked with specific cognitive skills as well as with general verbal ability. Since Millman and his associates first defined testwiseness, other researchers have confirmed that objective or multiple-choice tests—whether commercially developed or teacher made—are most susceptible to the influence of testwiseness. This may be particularly problematic among test users with large groups of examinees for whom they are responsible or those who have to assess mastery of a great deal of information (which lends itself better to objective tests rather than short answer or essay tests).

Trainability

Despite ongoing debate about its composition, testwiseness is reported to be trainable in individuals from preschool through adulthood in a variety of settings and disciplines. Certainly, not all examinees show improvement in test performance following training in testwiseness strategies; such improvement, if it occurs, is thought to be dependent on various factors such as examinee’s attitude, length and intensity of training, prior knowledge, familiarity with application of testwiseness skills, and the use of metacognition about one’s test performance. What is clear is that a testwise individual tends to perform better on items that are “testwise susceptible” than another examinee, who may be equally knowledgeable about test content, but who lacks testwiseness. Individuals who are lower in testwiseness may, therefore, be at a considerable disadvantage in a testing situation.

Controversies

A major controversy that surrounds testwiseness relates to whether it should be taught at all. If a test score is a snapshot of a student’s functioning at a particular moment in time, then teaching testwiseness strategies that are based on something other than ability and knowledge of test content might lead to inaccurate determinations about that student’s actual learning. It is also argued that training in testwiseness benefits already privileged students whose families can afford the substantial costs charged by test preparation companies but does not similarly privilege students with low income, who might be equally deserving, but for whose families those costs might be prohibitive. Testwiseness also compromises test validity and predictive utility because the test does not measure what it purports to measure but instead assesses [Page 1694]the test taker’s ability to “work” the test. If testwiseness influences test validity, then it also follows that it implicates test reliability, that is, consistency in measurement.

...