Introduction

Matching items are a versatile tool in the educator's toolbox of assessment strategies, as they offer a structured format to assess learners' understanding across various subjects and learning objectives. Comprising two essential components - premises and responses - matching items present an opportunity to measure comprehension, recognition, and categorization skills. Premises serve as the statements or information being tested, while responses provide the options or choices that correspond to the premises. Unlike other question formats, such as multiple choice or constructed response, matching items require learners to establish connections between related elements rather than providing standalone responses.

In this chapter, we delve into the fundamentals of writing effective matching test items, exploring guidelines aimed at optimizing their usability and validity. Through careful consideration of factors such as brevity, response loading, homogeneity, and formatting, you can construct matching items that accurately gauge learners' grasp of key concepts while minimizing learners' potential for guessing at correct responses. Additionally, we provide examples to distinguish between effective and ineffective matching item lists, offering insights into common pitfalls and best practices. Lastly, we explore variations of matching test items, including key lists, classification questions, and ordered lists, each tailored to assess cognitive skills and learning objectives through different approaches. By mastering the art of crafting well-designed matching test items, you can enhance the assessment process and foster deeper learning experiences for your learners.

Affordances and Constraints of Matching Test Items

Matching test items offer several affordances that make them valuable tools in your assessment toolkit. Firstly, they provide a structured format for assessing learners' understanding and comprehension across diverse subjects and learning objectives. By requiring learners to establish connections between related elements, matching items promote critical thinking and analytical skills while facilitating the retrieval of learned information. Additionally, matching items offer versatility, allowing you to assess various cognitive skills such as recognition, categorization, and sequencing within a single assessment format. However, matching items are not without their constraints. They are limited in their ability to assess higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, as they primarily focus on recognition and recall. Moreover, designing effective matching items requires careful attention to detail, including the formulation of clear premises and responses, and preventing guessing or selecting correct responses through the process of elimination. Despite these constraints, when used judiciously and in conjunction with other assessment methods, matching test items provide valuable insights into learners' comprehension and mastery of course material.

Guidelines for Writing Matching Items

To ensure the effectiveness and reliability of matching items, you must adhere to several key guidelines. These guidelines are in addition to the general guidelines shared in the chapter on Item Creation. Before introducing the guidelines, it's essential to understand the distinction between premises and responses because there are guidelines that specifically reference either premises or responses. Again, premises constitute the statements, facts, or information being tested, while responses encompass the options or choices provided to match with the premises. Delineating between premises and responses is important for creating coherent and meaningful assessment items that accurately measure learners' knowledge and comprehension. Table 1 provides an example of premises and responses for a matching item about assessment basics. (This example also offers a good opportunity for self-assessment over terms from previous chapters).

Table 1. Good Example of a Matching Item

Now that you understand the differences between premises and responses, we can delve into the guidelines for writing matching items. We offer six guidelines to follow for maximizing the effectiveness of these test items. These guidelines include:

1. Relative Brevity
2. Response Loading
3. Homogeneity
4. Response Order
5. Formatting
6. Directions

1. Relative Brevity

Relative brevity is a critical consideration when crafting matching test items. Ideally, each column should contain a manageable number of items, typically ranging from three to six premises and six to nine responses. This brevity not only enhances the clarity and focus of the assessment but also facilitates easier scanning for answers and reduces the potential for confusion or cognitive overload. Additionally, responses should be kept concise to streamline the matching process further. Shorter responses not only make it easier for learners to identify correct matches but also mitigate the risk of distractions or irrelevant information detracting from the assessment's validity. If you find that your responses are getting too long, you have two options to consider. First, your responses might actually need to be your premises. Second, and this is especially true if you have long premises and long responses, you might actually need to use a different item type to assess the knowledge, skills, or attitudes that you are seeking to measure.

2. Response Loading

To prevent learners from simply guessing the correct responses, or deducing the correct responses through the process of elimination, you should carefully load up on the response options. This entails including two to three more responses than premises, ensuring that learners must engage with the material thoughtfully rather than relying on chance or elimination. Please consider the following BAD example of a matching item. Even if you don't know the content well, can you still get the right answers through process of elimination or guessing? (Answers are shared in Table 12 at the end of the chapter.)

Table 2. BAD Example of Matching Item: No Response Loading

For the example above, chances are that even if you can only identify some of the most well-known leaders during World War II, say Churchill and Hitler, you can still reasonable guess the matches for the other answers. In fact, knowing only two correct answers gives you a 25% chance of guessing correctly at random. Pair that with the ability to eliminate some options due to how "French" or "American" the names sound, and now you have improved your chances of guessing correctly to 33-50%. Consider how this changes using the Table 3.

Table 3. GOOD Example of Matching Item: Added Response Loading

Directions: In the blank for each description in the first column, write the capital letter of the correct option in the second column. Each option in the second column will only be used once, and each description only has one correct answer.

Table 3 now has three additional options. Even if we could only identify Churchill and Hitler before, now our chances of guessing the correct answer has decreased from 25% to about 17%. Even trying to determine the nationality of some names has become more difficult with the addition of names from Belgium, Australia, and Canada. This allows for a more valid measurement of learner knowledge because it lowers the threshhold for correct guessing and/or answering through the process of elimination.

3. Homogeneity

Next, maintaining homogeneity between and within premises and responses is essential for creating effective matching items. If the premises describe events, the corresponding responses should contain only event names, or event dates, or people central to the event. We cannot mix these kinds of responses! Consistency in homogeneity fosters clarity and coherence, enabling learners to focus on making meaningful connections between related concepts.

Homogeneity also prevents learners from being able to eliminate response options that lack essential characterstics that the premises require or hint at. In Table 4 above, for example, notice that all of the responses were names of people. If we had instead included names of places, events, or dates, those options could have immediately been discarded as possible correct answers.

Creating matching items that lack homogeneity can easily occur when creating matching items used to assess vocabulary. This can be quite problematic because vocabulary tests often use matching items. Please consider Table 5. While this matching item appears to have homogeneity and follow the previous rules that we've established for matching items, see if you can figure out the correct answers through deduction and guessing.

Table 5. BAD Example of Matching Item: No Homogeneity

Those of you who have a strong background in English or enjoy grammar, might be able to see that this item is not actually as homogeneous as it appears. While the premises are all definitions and the responses are all vocabulary words from the Advance Placement Language list, the definitions and terms fit into different parts of speech. This means that the grammar-savvy learner will be able to actually chunk this into several smaller matching items as seen in Table 6.

Table 6. Dissection of Matching Item With BAD Homogeneity

Because the item above lacks homogeneity within its premieses and responses, there is really only one possible answer for the first premise. Similarly, there are two possible answers for each of the second and third responses, which provide definitions for verbs (hinted at by the fact that the premises start with "to" and with verbs, and that the responses both end in "-ate".) If learners recognize that "Alienate" means to make one "feel like an alien," or in this case "to remove or dissassociate from" then they will automatically be able to guess the correct response for "to free from guilt or blame" and visa versa.

The premises and responses for nouns are better examples of what a matching item should look like. For premises four and five, learners have to choose between five different options, so even if they know that number four provides the definition of a "Maverik," they still only have a 25% chance of correctly guessing the correct reponse for number five (by guessing alone). However, even then, some learners might be able to narrow down the choices to either "Integrity" or "Objectivity," based on familiarity or the "-ity" hint at the end of each word. While this provides a 50% chance of guessing correctly - it is still a far better alternative than the chances of guessing correctly on premises 1-3.

Overall, we should strive to make sure that our matching items provide homogeneity between and within our lists of responses and premises. For vocabulary this can mean only using one part of speech for each set of premises and responses. For other ideas, such as names, dates, events, or processes, we will need to make sure our lists are aligned for homogeneity. 

You might find that for some matching items homogeneity is not possible. If this is the case, we should seek to use a different kind of test item or consider whether one of the additional types of matching items provided in the "Variations of Matching Items" below will work.

4. Response Order

Ordering responses in a logical fashion is another best practice when designing matching items. Whether you arrange responses alphabetically, chronologically, or according to another logical criterion, providing a clear sequence enhances the assessment's structure and facilitates learners' abilities to comprehend and navigate a list of responses when seeking to match one to a premise. If we do not have a logical order to our responses, we will unnecessarily increase the cognitive load required to successfully complete the test item. Such cognitive load could invalidate our measurements. Notice that the examples above all order the responses alphabetically. In the case of responses that are names, such as in Tables 2 and 3, either the first or last name can be used for alphabetical order. 

5. Formatting

In addition to avoiding the cognitive load that is created by haphazard response order, you should also avoid other formatting issues that could increase cognitive load. For example, please avoid page flipping by ensuring that the entire matching lists fit on a single page. This minimizes confusion and allows learners to focus on the task at hand without the distraction of navigating between multiple pages. Additionally, because learners in the U.S. ready left-to-right list the premisese first and then the responses. This helps to decrease cognitive load because the longer statement is given priority, allowing learners to more easily scan the shorter words or phrases in the premises to match to the longer description. Lastly, to improve readability and ease of providing feedback or review, number the premises in the first column and use capital letters to label the responses. By adhering to these guidelines, educators can create matching test items that effectively assess learners' understanding while promoting critical thinking and retention of course material.

6. Directions

Throughout your own educational experiences you have probably seen a lot of variations concerning how to complete a matching item. Sometimes we are asked to draw lines between the responses and premises. At other times, we might be asked to provide the number or letter corresponding to each response next to its correct premise. While it may seem like these approaches are equally effective, that is not always the case. As explained in the Item Creation chapter, writing capital letters will produce more clarity than having learners write lower case letters. Additionally, allowing learners to draw lines can also create lack of clarity and slow down grading and feedback processes as you seek to untangle a maze of webs leading from premises to responses.

Consider which of the following matching items is easier to read and to check for correct responses, then imagine having to grade a class set of tests with this item on it. 

Image 1. Example of Line v. Letter Answers

The answers for both matching items are correct, but it takes longer to trace the connections between premises and repsonses in the first version of the item. And in this case, we tried to create more or less straight lines to connect the premises to responses. Some learners, will be much more "creative" in how they connect their premises and responses. Fostering creativity is important, for sure, but this is perhaps not the best opportunity for doing so.

Variations on the Matching Item

While the traditional matching item presented above is plenty versatile in its ability to measure various contents and ideas, there are also variations on the matching item that can make it even more versatile! Below we present three such variations: (a) the Key List, (b) the Classification Question, and (c) the Ordered List. We invite you to consider how each of these might be used for your instructional context and purposes.

Key List

Key List matching items are one variation of the traditional matching test format, offering a alternative approach to assessing learners' understanding and application of course material. In this approach, a concise list of 3 to 4 answer choices, known as the key list, is provided alongside a larger pool of possible answers. Instead of presenting the premises and responses as two separate columns, key lists first present a smaller list of responses and then the premises. Table 7 provides one such example.

Table 7. Key List Example #1: Write the Letter

Directions: Match each Marvel superhero character to his/her power by writing A, B, C, and/or D on the blanks in front of each character.

The purpose of employing a key list is twofold: first, it allows educators to streamline the assessment process by presenting learners with a focused set of response options, reducing cognitive load and simplifying the matching task. Second, the inclusion of a larger pool of potential responses challenges learners to critically evaluate and discriminate between correct and incorrect responses, thereby deepening the measurement of their comprehension and analytical skills. Learners can't answer a key list item through the process of elimination because each response is always an option for each premise.

For instance, in a science class, learners may be presented with a key list of historical figures alongside a list of events or descriptions as premises, requiring them to accurately pair each figure, or figures, to the corresponding  premises. Table 8 presents a copmleted example of another way of setting up a key list using this example from Greek mythology. By leveraging key list matching items, you can effectively gauge learners' mastery of specific content while fostering critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.

Table 8. Key List Example #2: Mark the Table

Directions: Place a mark (such as an X or check mark) in each cell to identify which figures are described by the statements.

Classification Questions

Classification questions represent another variation of traditional matching items, providing educators with a powerful tool to assess learners' ability to categorize and organize information effectively. In this format, learners are tasked with sorting answers from a column of options into distinct groups or classes specified in a list of categories similar to a key list. Unlike key list matching items, however, each item in classification questions is uniquely assigned to a single category. This distinction challenges learners to discern nuanced differences and accurately allocate items into their respective classes, thereby demonstrating a deep level of understanding. For example, in an earth science class, learners may be presented with a list of elements or compunds and asked to classify them into different states of matter. By engaging with classification questions, educators can assess learners' ability to identify patterns, make connections, and demonstrate mastery of complex concepts within a structured framework. Table 9 presents an example of earth science and Table 10 presents an example for English language arts.

Table 9. Classification Question Example #1: Write the Letter

Directions: Next to each material listed below, write the letter of its corresponding category. Each material will only belong in one category, so you will only write one letter per item. Answer using the typical form of the material or the way that we typically think about the material.

Table 10. Classification Question Example #2: Mark the Table

Directions: In the following table, mark which family each character listed on the right belongs to. If the character is not a biological member of the family, mark "Other." Each character will only belong to one group, so each row should only have one mark.

Ordered List

Ordered list matching items serve as a valuable tool for assessing learners' understanding and recall of sequential procedures or events within various disciplines. This format is particularly beneficial for testing knowledge of processes that unfold in a specific chronological sequence, such as those encountered in physical education, art, or scientific experiments. With ordered list matching items, learners are presented with a series of steps, actions, or events in a single column and are instructed to number or arrange them in the correct chronological order. In this type of matching item, the steps of the process serve as the premises and the numbers serve as the responses.

For example, in physical education, learners may be tasked with ordering the stages of a warm-up routine or cues for throwing an American football. In an art class, learners may need to sequence the steps involved in creating a clay vase. Similarly, in science, learners might be asked to arrange the steps of a laboratory experiment in the order they should be performed. By engaging with ordered list matching items, learners not only demonstrate their ability to recall and sequence procedural information accurately but also reinforce their comprehension of the underlying concepts and principles inherent to the subject matter. This format can encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and the development of organizational skills essential for success across various academic disciplines. Table 11 presents an ordered list item from the context of a weight-lifting class.

Table 11. Ordered List Example

Directions: Number the following steps using numbers 1-8 for completing the clean and press. The first step should be number 1 and the last step number 8, respectively.

Final Thoughts on Matching Items

Mastering the art of crafting effective matching test items is essential for educators seeking to assess learners' understanding and comprehension across various subjects and learning objectives. Throughout this chapter, we have explored the fundamentals of writing matching items and subsequently their premises and responses. We emphasized guidelines aimed at optimizing usability and validity. By adhering to guiding principles such as (1) relative brevity, (2) response loading, (3) homogeneity, (4) response order, (5) formatting, and (6) clear directions, you can create matching items that accurately measure your learners' knowledge while promoting critical thinking and retention of course material. This chapter also introduced three variations of matching items: (a) key lists, (b) classification questions, and (c) ordered lists, each offering unique approaches to assessing cognitive skills and learning objectives.

By incorporating these strategies into assessment practices, you can enhance your assessment processes, foster deeper learning experiences, and ultimately, better support learners' growth and success. Looking ahead, we encourage you to continue practicing and applying these principles. Thorough practice and application of the principles found above will empower you to design meaningful and impactful assessments that effectively measure learning outcomes across various instructional contexts.

Oh, and Table 12 presents the answers for Table 2, in case you were still curious.

Table 12. Correct Answers for Table 2