Al-Rukban, M. O. (2006). Guidelines for the construction of multiple choice questions tests. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 13(3), 125-133.
Asmus, E. P. (1981). The effect of altering the number of choices per item on test statistics: Is there better than five?. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 65(1), 1-15.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baghaei, P., & Amrahi, N. (2011). The effects of the number of options on the psychometric characteristics of multiple-choice items. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(2), 192-211.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. McGraw-Hill College.
Budescu, D. V., & Nevo, B. (1985). Optimal number of options: An investigation of the assumption of proportionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(3), 138-196.
Crehan, K., Haladyna, T. M., & Brewer, B. W. (1993). Use of an inclusive option and the optimal number of options for multiple-choice items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 241-247.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Currie, M., & Chiramanee, T. (2010). The effect of the multiple-choice item format on the measurement of knowledge of language structure. Language Testing, 27(4), 471-491.
Dawson, J. R. (2015). Comparative analysis on personality traits and motivation on the international student’s academic performance in universities in Taiwan. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences, 4(3), 209-216.
Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (1998). Further evidence favoring three-option items in multiple-choice tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 197.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
Esfandiari, R., & Radfar, S. (2017). An investigation into the relationship between personality traits and Iranian EFL learners’ performance on C-test. Teaching English Language, 11(1), 167-188.
Farhady, H., & Shakery, S. (2000). Number of options and economy of multiple-choice tests. Roshd Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 14(1), 57.
Farhady, H., Ja’farpur, A. & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills from theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT.
Fulcher, G. (210). Practical language testing. London: Routlege.
Green, K., Sax, G., & Michael, W. (1982). Validity and reliability of tests having differing numbers of options for students of differing level of ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(1), 239-245.
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice-item writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37-50. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0201-3
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item?. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 999-1010.
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.
Hansen, J. D., & Dexter, L. (1997). Quality multiple-choice test questions: item-writing guidelines and an analysis of auditing test banks. Journal of Education for Business, 73(2), 94-97.
Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language test: Longman handbooks for language teachers. New York: Longman.
Hogben, D. (2015). The reliability, discrimination and difficulty of word-knowledge tests employing multiple-choice items containing three, four, or five alternatives. The Australian Journal of Education, 17(1), 63-68.
Jensen, M. (2015). Personality traits, learning and academic achievements. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 91-118. doi:10.5539/jel.v4n4p91
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality. Theory and Research, 2(1999), 102-138.
John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin. L. A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.
Kilgour, J. M., & Tayyaba, S. (2016). An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 571-585.
Lee, H., & Winke, P. (2012). The differences among three-, four-, five-option-item format in the context of a high-stakes English-language listening test. Language Testing, 30(1), 99-123. doi: 10.1177/0265532212451235
Mehrens, W. A., & Lehman, I. J. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Inc.: Orlando, FL.
Nejati, R., & Moradi, M. (2015). Utility of complex alternatives in multiple-choice items: The case of all of the above. Research in Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 87-97.
Ng, A., & Chan, A. (2009). Different methods of multiple-choice test, implications and design for further research. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 2(1), 1-6.
Nwadinibgwe, P. I., & Naibi, L. (2013). The number of options in a multiple-choice test item and the psychometric characteristics. Journal of Education and Practice, 28(4), 189-196.
Nwadinibgwe, P. I., & Naibi, L. (2013). The number of options in a multiple-choice test item and the psychometric characteristics. Journal of Education and Practice, 28(4), 189-196.
Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. Dordrecht: Springer.
Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. Dordrecht: Springer.
Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1987). What’s wrong with three-option multiple-choice items?. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 513-522.
Ramos, R. A., & Stern, J. (1973). Item behavior associated with changes in the number of alternatives in multiple-choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10(4), 305-310.
Razavipour, K. (2013). Assessing assessment literacy: Insights from a high-stakes test. Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 111-131.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3-13.
Rogers, W. T., & Harley, D. (1999). An empirical comparison of three-, and four-choice items and tests: Susceptibility to testwiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 234-247.
Sadeghi, K., & Akhavan Masoumi, G. (2017). Does number of options in multiple choice tests affect item facility and discrimination? An examination of test-taker preferences. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9(19), 123-143.
Schneid, S. D., Armour, C., Park, S. Y., Yudkowsky, R., & Bordage, G. (2014). Reducing the number of options on multiple-choice questions: Response time, psychometrics and standard setting. Medical Education, 48(10), 1020-1027.
Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yashima, T., & Yoshizawa, K. (2006). A comparison of three-and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan. Foreign Language Education and Research, 23(1), 35-57. doi: 10.1191/0265532206lt319oa
Sidick, J. T., Barrett, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (1994). Three-alternative multiple choice tests: An attractive option. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 829-835.
Swanson, D. B., Holtzman, K. Z., Allbee, K., & Clauser, B. E. (2006). Psychometric characteristics and response times for content-parallel extended-matching and one-best-answer items in relation to number of options. Academic Medicine, 81(10), S52-S55.
Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2010). A comparison of the psychometric properties of three-and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today, 30(6), 539-543.
Tarrant, M., Ware, J., & Mohammed, A. M. (2009). An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: A descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Education, 9(1), 1-8.
Thanyapa, I., & Currie, M. (2014). The number of options in multiple-choice items in language tests: does it make any difference? Evidence from Thailand. Language Testing in Asia, 8(4), 1-21.
Trevisan, M. S., Sax, G., & Michael, W. B. (1994). Estimating the optimum number of options per item using an incremental option paradigm. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 86-91.
Vegada, B., Shukla, A., Khilnani, A., Charan, J., & Desai, C. (2016). Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 48(5), 571-575.
)