All three distractor types led to incorrect responses regardless of item type and proficiency level.
Fig. 11 User interface of item type for assessing BPMN modeling skills.
Fig. 7 User interface of item type for filling a T-account for a business transaction.
Fig. 5 User interface of item type for assessing a business transaction's impact on profit.
The interaction of item type and condition approached significance [F 2,142) = 2.42 and p =.049].
Further, there was a significant main effect of item type [ χ 2(2)=1262.00 and p <.001], and a significant interaction of expertise and item type [ χ 2(4)=41.05 and p <.001].001]
When the Interim Testing group was compared to the Emphasized Details group, we found a main effect of item type (F 1, 172) = 62.58, P < 0.001, ( {eta}_p^2=0.42 )).
Further, we observed a significant main effect of item type [F 2,142) = 27.20 and p <.001], indicating that confidence was higher for the no-filler items compared to the contact items and the yes-filler items,p<.003.003
A 3 (Item type: Consistent, Neutral, Misleading) × 3 (Group: Traditional, Interim Testing, Details Emphasized) ANOVA on average misleading errors of commission found a main effect of item type (F 2, 258) = 167.67, P < 0.001, ( {eta}_p^2=0.56 )).
A 3 (Item type: Consistent, Neutral, Misleading) × 3 (Group: Traditional, Interim Test, Emphasized Details) ANOVA on average correct responding found a main effect of item type (F 2, 258) = 82.31, P < 0.001, ( {eta}_p^2=0.39 )).
