Victoria Crisp

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Victoria Crisp
• Troubleshooting in emergency education settings: What types of strategies did schools employ during the COVID-19 pandemic and what can they tell us about schools’ adaptability, values and crisis-readiness?Filio Constantinou
• How long should a high stakes test be?Tom Benton
• Core Maths: Who takes it, what do they take it with, and does it improve performance in other subjects?Tim Gill
• Does typing or handwriting exam responses make any difference? Evidence from the literatureSanti Lestari
• Comparing music recordings using Pairwise Comparative Judgement: Exploring the judge experienceLucy Chambers, Emma Walland and Jo Ireland
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Vitello, S., Crisp, V., & Ireland, J. (2023). An example of redeveloping checklists to support assessors who check draft exam papers for errors Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 36, 46-58. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.101744

Assessment materials must be checked for errors before they are presented to candidates. Any errors have the potential to reduce validity. For example, in the most extreme cases, an error may turn an otherwise well-designed exam question into one that is impossible to answer. In Cambridge University Press & Assessment, assessment materials are checked by multiple assessment specialists across different stages during assessment development. While human checkers are critical to this process, we must acknowledge that there is ample research showing the shortcomings of being human (e.g., we have cognitive biases, and memory and attentional limitations). It is important to provide assessment checkers with tools that help overcome or mitigate these limitations.

This article is about one type of checking tool – checklists. We describe a research-informed, collaborative project to support assessors in performing their checks of exam papers. This project focused on redesigning the instructional, training and task materials provided to assessors. A key part of this was to design checklists for assessors to use when performing their checks. In this article, we focus primarily on the approach that we took for these checklists in order to draw readers’ attention to the complexity that is involved in designing them and to provide a practical example of how research can be used strategically to inform key design decisions.

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• The prevalence and relevance of Natural History assessments in the school curriculum, 1858–2000: a study of the Assessment ArchivesGillian Cooke
• The impact of GCSE maths reform on progression to mathematics post-16Carmen Vidal Rodeiro, Joanna Williamson
• An example of redeveloping checklists to support assessors who check draft exam papers for errorsSylvia Vitello, Victoria Crisp, Jo Ireland
• An analysis of the relationship between Secondary Checkpoint and IGCSE resultsTim Gill
• Synchronous hybrid teaching: how easy is it for schools to implement?Filio Constantinou
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Crisp. V. and Shaw, S., D. (2020). Writing and reviewing assessment questions on-screen: issues and challenges. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 30, 19-26.

For assessment contexts where both a paper-based test and an on-screen assessment are available as alternatives, it is still common for the paper-based test to be prepared first with questions later transferred into an on-screen testing platform. One challenge with this is that some questions cannot be transferred. One solution might be for questions to be drafted into the on-screen testing platform and later converted for the paper-based test. This research investigated the issues that might arise if question writers drafted questions directly into the on-screen testing platform and if questions were reviewed directly in the platform.

Six assessors with experience of setting and reviewing questions took part. After some familiarisation, each participant attended a research meeting where they drafted some questions into an on-screen testing platform and reviewed some questions in the platform. After each activity, participants completed a workload questionnaire and were interviewed.

The findings suggest that training and support would be important. Participants reported feeling restricted when setting items. Evidence suggested that setters may avoid certain item types, write shorter questions than normal or write less creative questions. Setting was also reported to be slower. However, these issues could reduce with greater experience. Overall, it seems that it would be possible for setters to create at least some of their questions within an on-screen testing platform. However, care would be needed to mitigate frustration, ensure question quality and ensure representation of all relevant constructs.

• Foreword Tim Oates, CBE
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• A New Cambridge Assessment Archive Collection Exploring Cambridge English Exams in Germany and England in JPLO Gillian Cooke
• Perspectives on curriculum design: comparing the spiral and the network models Jo Ireland, Melissa Mouthaan
• Context matters—Adaptation guidance for developing a local curriculum from an international curriculum framework Sinead Fitszimons, Victoria Coleman, Jackie Greatorex, Hiba Salem, Martin Johnson
• Setting and reviewing questions on-screen: issues and challenges Victoria Crisp, Stuart Shaw
• A way of using taxonomies to demonstrate that applied qualifcations and curricula cover multiple domains of knowledge Irenka Suto, Jackie Greatorex, Sylvia Vitello, Simon Child
• Research News Anouk Peigne

• Foreword Tim Oates, CBE
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• Accessibility in GCSE Science exams – Students' perspectives Victoria Crisp and Sylwia Macinska
• Using corpus linguistic tools to identify instances of low linguistic accessibility in tests David Beauchamp, Filio Constantinou
• A framework for describing comparability between alternative assessments Stuart Shaw, Victoria Crisp, Sarah Hughes
• Comparing small-sample equating with Angoff judgement for linking cut-scores on two tests Tom Bramley
• How useful is comparative judgement of item difficulty for standard maintaining? Tom Benton
• Research News Anouk Peigne

Shaw, S. D., Crisp, V. and Hughes, S. (2020). A framework for describing comparability between alternative assessments. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 29, 17-22.

The credibility of an Awarding Organisation’s products is partly reliant upon the claims it makes about its assessments and on the evidence it can provide to support such claims. Some such claims relate to comparability. For example, for syllabuses with options, such as the choice to conduct coursework or to take an alternative exam testing similar skills, there is a claim that overall candidates’ results are comparable regardless of the choice made. This article describes the development and piloting of a framework that can be used, concurrently or retrospectively, to evaluate the comparability between different assessments that act as alternatives. The framework is structured around four types of assessment standards and is accompanied by a recording form for capturing declared comparability intentions and for evaluating how well these intentions have been achieved. The framework and recording form together are intended to: 

• provide a structure for considering comparability in terms of four established assessment standards

• afford an opportunity for test developers to consider their intentions with respect to the comparability claims they wish to make

• provide a list of factors (within each assessment standard) that are likely to contribute to the comparability of two alternative assessments 

• give a structure for collecting a body of relevant information against these factors 

Crisp, V. and Macinska, S. (2020). Accessibility in GCSE Science exams - Students's perspectives. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 29, 2-10.

As part of continued efforts to ensure inclusivity in assessment, OCR has developed a set of accessibility principles for question design in GCSE Science examinations, which has been applied since 2018. The principles are intended to help ensure that all students can demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and skills to the best of their ability. The aim of this research was to consider the effectiveness of the accessibility principles by investigating students’ perceptions of question features in terms of accessibility. Two versions of a short test were constructed using questions with and without the accessibility principles applied. Students in Year 11 (aged 15 to 16 years old) from four schools across England attempted the test and, of these, 57 were interviewed afterwards. Students were asked about question design features relating to the different accessibility principles and encouraged to talk about how accessible they felt the questions were and why. The results revealed that for most of the question features explored in this study, students’ perceptions of accessibility tended to align with expected effects. However, for three accessibility themes, the findings were neutral or mixed. 

• Foreword Gordon Stobart
• Editorial Tim Oates
• An approach to validation: Developing and applying an approach for the validation of general qualifications (First published 2012) Stuart Shaw, Victoria Crisp
• Introduction
• Approach to validity
• Framework development
• International A level context
• Methodological overview
• Constructing an interpretive argument for International A level Physics
• Gathering evidence to construct a validity argument for International A level Physics : Evidence 1–18
• Summary of A level Physics validation findings and evaluation of the argument
• Conclusions
• References
• Afterword (January 2020) Stuart Shaw, Victoria Crisp
• References

Shaw, S., & Crisp, V. (2020). Afterword. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, Special Issue 3 (First published 2012), 44-45.

It has been eight years since the publication of this special issue exemplifying ‘An approach to validation’ (and closer to ten years since the work it describes was conducted).Validation studies continue to be demanding activities, not helped by considerable variety in views about what validation should involve, what it can achieve and whom it should serve (Newton & Shaw, 2016). One thing is clear, however. There is an increasing demand for awarding bodies to demonstrate the quality of their qualifications and meeting this demand is no mean feat. Our main motivation for publishing this work was to provide a practical example for would-be validators by describing the framework (based on Kane, 2006) and methods that we applied in a validation study of International A level Physics.

Bramley, T., Crisp, V. and Shaw, S. (2019). The art of test construction: Can you make a good Physics exam by selecting questions from a bank? Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 27, 2-8.

In the traditional approach to constructing a GCSE or A Level examination paper, a single person writes the whole paper. In some other contexts, tests are constructed by selecting questions from a bank of questions. In this research, we asked experts to evaluate the quality of Physics exam papers constructed in the traditional way, constructed by expert selection of items from a bank, and constructed by computer selection of items from a bank. Anecdotal evidence suggested a “compilation” process would be detrimental to the quality of this kind of exam. We wanted to test whether in fact assessment experts could distinguish between tests that had been created in the traditional way, and those that had been compiled by selection from a bank, when they were unaware of the method of construction.

Crisp, V., Johnson, M. and Constantinou, F. (2019) A question of quality: Conceptualisations of quality in the context of educational test questions. Research in Education, 105 (1), 18-41.

Crisp, V. (2018). Insights into teacher moderation of marks on high-stakes non-examined assessments. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 25, 14-20.

Where teachers assess their students’ work for high-stakes purposes, their judgements are standardised through professional discussions with their colleagues - a process often known as internal moderation. This process is important to the reliability of results as any inconsistencies in the marking standards applied by different teachers within a school department can be problematic.
This research used interviews, a questionnaire and observations of mock internal moderation sessions to explore internal moderation practices in the context of school-based work contributing to high-stakes assessments. Teachers’ discussions focused on the location and sufficiency of relevant evidence in student work. This, along with reference to the mark scheme and discussing the meaning of assessment criteria, is consistent with Cook and Brown’s (1999) notion of tacit knowledge being made explicit and helping to create and refine ways of knowing. Thus, internal moderation acts as professional development for teachers as well as providing quality assurance. Around a quarter of teachers appear not to have opportunities to participate in internal moderation. Moderation by teachers is reported to be infrequently influenced by group dynamics, is thought to remove any personal bias, and teachers tended to report that the process worked well.

Shaw, S. and Crisp, V. (2015). Reflections on a framework for validation – Five years on. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 19, 31-37.

In essence, validation is simple. The basic questions which underlie any validation exercise are: what is being claimed about the test, and are the claims warranted (given all of the evidence). What could be more straightforward? Unfortunately, despite a century of theorising validity, it is still quite unclear exactly how much and what kind of evidence or analysis is required in order to establish a claim to validity. Despite Kane’s attempts to simplify validation by developing a methodology to support validation practice, one which is grounded in argumentation (e.g., Kane, 1992), and the “simple, accessible direction for practitioners” (Goldstein & Behuniak, 2011, p.36) provided by the Standards (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, & NCME], 2014), good validation studies still prove surprisingly challenging to implement.

In response, a framework for evidencing assessment validity in large-scale, high-stakes examinations and a set of methods for gathering validity evidence was developed in 2008/2009. The framework includes a number of validation questions to be answered by the collection of appropriate evidence and by related analyses. Both framework and methods were piloted and refined. Systematic implementation of the validation framework followed which employs two parallel validation strategies: 

2. an operational validation strategy which entails the gathering and synthesis of validation evidence currently generated routinely within operational processes.

Five years on, a number of issues have emerged which prompted a review of the validation framework and several conceptual and textual changes to the language of the framework. These changes strengthen the theoretical structure underpinning the framework.

This paper presents the revised framework, and reflects on the original scope of the framework and how this has changed. We also consider the suitability and meaningfulness of the language employed by the framework.

Crisp, V. (2014). Cultural and societal factors in high-performing jurisdictions. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 17, 29-41.

This article aims to provide insights into some of the cultural and societal contextual factors that influence education systems, using a number of high-performing jurisdictions (HPJs) as case studies. Consideration of the education and assessment systems of HPJs around the world has become a strategy of some interest during education reform and/or development. However, it has been noted that when doing so, societal and cultural features of the jurisdictions need to be considered (e.g. Elliott and Phuong-Mai, 2008; Alexander, 2010; Oates, 2010; Barber, Donnelly and Rizvi, 2012). The effects of a particular educational system may well be influenced by such factors, and as a result the system of one jurisdiction will not necessarily transfer the educational and achievement benefits if simply replicated in the jurisdiction undergoing change.

This article has been written using various secondary sources such as relevant articles, books and reports, newspaper articles, blog posts and other online material. A number of researchers have previously summarised and analysed the features of HPJs, including some of the cultural factors, to identify the possible reasons for the high achievements of students (at least on some of the measures that have been influential, such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS). Such work, key examples being the work of the Center on International Education Benchmarking and the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) produced book Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, was particularly useful to the current article.

Six jurisdictions were chosen as the focus for this exploration of cultural and societal factors. The focus jurisdictions were: Alberta (Canada), Shanghai (China), Hong Kong, Singapore,Victoria (Australia), and New Zealand. A few additional jurisdictions for which cultural issues of interest were also noted during the literature review for this article are also mentioned briefly.

Crisp, V. and Green, S. (2011). Practical issues in early implementation of the Diploma Principal Learning. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 12, 10-13.

This short article reports on some of the findings from an interview study conducted in the first year of implementation of the 14–19 Diplomas. The Diplomas were introduced by the Labour government as part of wider educational reforms (DfES, 2005a, 2005b). They were designed to prepare young people for the world of work or for independent study, and are intended to combine theoretical and applied learning, to provide different ways of learning, to encourage students to develop skills valued by employers and universities, and provide opportunities for students to apply skills to work situations in realistic contexts. They are also intended to contribute to ensuring that a wide range of appropriate learning pathways are available to young people, thus facilitating increased participation and attainment. The Diplomas are available at Levels 1, 2 and 3 and rather than being taught by an individual school or college, they are available through consortia consisting of a small group of schools and/or colleges working collaboratively. The Diploma is a composite qualification which is made up of the following elements: principal learning; generic learning; additional and specialist learning.

The current research focused on the Principal Learning (PL). The Principal Learning components are specific to a domain or ‘line of learning’. Learning through experience of simulated or real work contexts, through applying and practically developing skills, as well as theoretical learning, is emphasised. The PL components are assessed predominantly via assignments which are internally marked and externally moderated. Teaching of Diplomas in the first five ‘lines of learning’ began in September 2008 with a further five beginning in September 2009 and four in September 2010.

Six consortia running Phase 1 Diplomas in the first year of implementation took part in this research. At each consortium, one or more teachers and (in all but one case) a number of learners were interviewed about the learning that was occurring and various practicalities around implementation of the Diploma. This article reports on the latter.

Shaw, S. and Crisp, V. (2011). Tracing the evolution of validity in educational measurement: past issues and contemporary challenges. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 11, 14-17.

Validity is not a simple concept in the context of educational measurement. Measuring the traits or attributes that a student has learnt during a course is not like measuring an objective property such as length or weight; measuring educational achievement is less direct. Yet, educational outcomes can have high stakes in terms of consequences (e.g., affecting access to further education), thus the validity of assessments is highly important.

Tracing this trajectory of evolution, particularly through key documents such as the validity/validation chapter in editions of Educational Measurement (Cureton, 1951; Cronbach, 1971; Messick, 1989; Kane, 2006) and the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 1954/1955, 1966, 1974, 1985, 1999) has been important to us as part of work to develop an approach to validation for general assessments.

The concept of validity is not a new one. Conceptualisations of validity are apparent in the literature from around the turn of the twentieth century, and since that time, they have evolved significantly. Earliest perceptions of validity were that of a static property captured by a single statistic, usually an index of the correlation of test scores with some criterion (Binet, 1905; Pearson, 1896; Binet and Henri, 1899; Spearman, 1904). Through various re-conceptualisations, contemporary validity theory generally sees validity as about the appropriateness of the inferences and uses made from assessment outcomes, including some consideration of the consequences of test score use. This article traces the progress and changes in the theorisation of validity over time and the issues that led to these changes.

Shaw, S. and Crisp, V. (2010). Developing and piloting a framework for the validation of A levels. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 10, 44-47.

Validity is a key principle of assessment, a central aspect of which relates to whether the interpretations and uses of test scores are appropriate and meaningful (Kane, 2006). For this to be the case, various criteria must be achieved, such as good representation of intended constructs, and avoidance of construct irrelevant variance. Additionally, some conceptualisations of validity include consideration of the consequences that may result from the assessment, such as effects on classroom practice. The kinds of evidence needed may vary depending on the intended uses of assessment outcomes. For example, if assessment results are designed to be used to inform decisions about future study or employment, it is important to ascertain that the qualification acts as suitable preparation for this study or employment, and to some extent predicts likely success.

This article reports briefly on the development, piloting and revision of a framework and methodology for validating general academic qualifications such as A levels. The development drew on previously proposed frameworks for validation from the literature, and the resulting framework and set of methods were piloted with International A level Geography. This led to revisions to the framework and use with A level Physics.

Crisp, V. (2008).  Do assessors pay attention to appropriate features of student work when making assessment judgements? Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 6, 5-9.

It is via the judgements of appropriate experts that assessment decisions are made, yet the actual thought processes involved during marking or grading are under-researched. This article draws on a study of the cognitive and socially-influenced processes involved in marking and grading A level geography examinations and pilot research into the marking of GCSE coursework by teachers. This data was used to investigate whether assessors pay attention to appropriate features of student work.

Verbal protocols of assessors’ thinking aloud whilst marking and grading work were collected and measures of marker agreement were obtained. The protocols were analysed in detail using appropriate coding schemes. From the behaviours identified, a tentative model of the marking process was developed, within which features of student work affecting judgements and social and personal reactions were identified. Whilst many features that appeared to influence evaluations were clearly focussed on the criteria intended for evaluation, some were not and could have influenced evaluations. Reactions to language use or legibility (when not assessing communication), personal or emotional responses and social responses sometimes occurred before marking decisions. The article discusses whether such responses could explain variations in marks from different examiners.

Crisp, V. (2008). A review of literature regarding the validity of coursework and the rationale for its inclusion in the GCSE. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 5, 20-24.

Coursework was included in many GCSEs from their introduction in 1988 to increase the validity of assessment by providing wider evidence of student work and to enhance pupil learning by valuing skills such as critical thinking and independent learning (SEC, 1985). As the Secondary Examinations Council put it ‘above all, the assessment of coursework can correspond much more closely to the scale of values in this wider world, where the individual is judged as much by his or her style of working and ability to cooperate with colleagues as by the eventual product’ (SEC, 1985, p. 6).

The validity and reliability of the assessment of GCSE coursework has come under much discussion since its introduction with the focus of concerns changing over time. At the inception of the GCSE, the main threats anticipated were possible unreliability of teacher marking, possible cheating and concern that girls were favoured (see QCA, 2006a). Now, concerns about consistency across similar subjects, fairness and authenticity (including the issues of internet plagiarism and excessive assistance from others), tasks becoming overly-structured (and hence reducing learning benefits) along with the overall burden on students across subjects, have led to a review of coursework by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA).

This article reviews relevant literature using the stages of assessment described by Crooks, Kane and Cohen (1996) to structure discussion of possible improvements to the validity of assessment as a result of including a coursework element within GCSE specifications and possible threats to validity associated with coursework.

Suto, I., Crisp, V. and Greatorex, J. (2008). Investigating the judgemental marking process: an overview of our recent research. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 5, 6-9.

This article gives an overview of a number of linked studies which explored the process of marking GCSE and A-level examination questions from a number of different angles. Key aims of these studies were to provide insights into how examiner training and marking accuracy could be improved, as well as reasoned justifications for how item types could be assigned to different groups of examiners in the future. The research studies combined several approaches, exploring both the information that people attend to when marking items and the sequences of mental operations involved. Examples include studies that used the think-aloud method to identify the cognitive marking strategies entailed in marking student responses, or to explore the broader socio-cognitive influences on the marking process. Other examples explored the relationship between cognitive marking strategy complexity and marking accuracy.

This article brings together the findings from these various related studies to summarise the influences and processes that have been identified as important to the marking process from the research conducted so far.

Crisp, V. (2007). Researching the judgement processes involved in A-level marking. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 4, 13-18.

The marking of examination scripts by examiners is a key part of the assessment process in many assessment systems. Despite this, there has been relatively little work to investigate the process of marking at a cognitive and socially-framed level. Improved understanding of the judgement processes underlying current assessment systems would also leave us better prepared to anticipate the likely effects of various innovations in examining systems such as moves to on-screen marking.

An AS level and an A2 level geography exam paper were selected. Six experienced examiners who usually mark at least one of the two papers participated in the research. Examiners marked fifty scripts from each exam at home with the marking of the first ten scripts for each reviewed by the relevant Principal Examiner. This reflected normal marking procedures as far as possible. Examiners later came to meetings individually where they marked four or five scripts in silence and four to six scripts whilst thinking aloud for each exam, and were also interviewed.

The findings of this research support the view that assessment involves processes of actively constructing meaning from texts as well as involving cognitive processes. The idea of examining as a practice that occurs within a social framework is supported by the evidence of some social, personal and affective responses. Aspects of markers’ social histories as examiners and teachers were evident in the comparisons that they made and perhaps more implicitly in their evaluations. The overlap of these findings with aspects of various previous findings helps to validate both current and previous research, thus aiding the continued development of an improved understanding of the judgement processes involved in marking.

Crisp, V. and Johnson, M. (2006). Examiners annotations: practice and purpose. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 2, 11-14.

The processes of reading and writing are recognised to be inextricably intertwined. Writing helps to support cognitive demands made upon the reader whilst processing a text (e.g., O’Hara, 1996; Benson, 2001). Examiners annotate scripts whilst marking (e.g., underlining, circling, using abbreviations or making comments) and this may reflect the cognitive support for comprehension building that annotations can provide. There is also some existing evidence that annotations might act as a communicative device in relation to accountability and that annotating might have a positive influence on markers’ perceptions and affect their feelings of efficacy.

This research investigated the use of annotations during marking and the role that annotations might be playing in the marking process. Six mathematics GCSE examiners and six business studies GCSE examiners who had previously been standardised to mark the paper were recruited. Examiners initially marked ten scripts which were then reviewed by their Team Leader. Examiners then marked a further 46 (Business Studies) or 40 (Mathematics) scripts.

The examiners later attended individual meetings with researchers. The session began with each examiner marking a small number of new scripts to re-familiarise themselves with the examination paper and mark scheme. A researcher then observed each examiner as they continued marking a few further scripts. Each examiner was interviewed about their use of annotations.

The findings portray a clear sense that markers in both subjects believed that annotating performed two distinct functions. The first appeared to be justificatory, communicating the reasons for their marking decisions to others. This mirrors the statutory requirements for awarding bodies to establish transparent, accountable procedures which ensure quality, consistency, accuracy and fairness. The second purpose was to support their thinking and marking decisions. In addition to helping markers with administrative aspects of marking (for example, keeping a running tally of marks), there are claims that annotations also support higher order reading comprehension processes.

Crisp, V. and Sweiry, E. (2005). Can a picture ruin a thousand words? The effects of visual resources and layout in examination questions. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 1, 11-15.

Visual resources, such as pictures, diagrams and photographs, can sometimes influence students’ understanding of an examination question and their responses (Fisher-Hoch, Hughes and Bramley, 1997).  If visual resources do have a disproportionately large influence on the development of mental models, this has implications in examinations where students’ ability to process material effectively is already compromised by test anxiety (Sarason, 1988). Students need to understand questions in the way intended in order to have a fair opportunity to display their knowledge and skills.

This research explored the effects of visual resources in a number of exam questions. 525 students, aged 16 years, sat an experimental science test under examination conditions. The test included six questions involving graphical or layout elements. For most of the questions, two versions were constructed in order to investigate the effects of changes to visual resources on processing and responses. Some of the students were interviewed after they had taken the test.

The analysis of the example questions in this study, along with others the authors have studied, suggest that two variables in particular play a decisive role in the effect of visual resources on the way examination questions are processed and answered. The first of these is the relative salience or prominence of the key elements. Secondly, the student must believe that the element is relevant to the answer. One factor in determining this is past test experience, which provides expectations regarding under what circumstances visual resources are relevant.