Literature DB >> 19004145

Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options.

Rashmi Vyas1, Avinash Supe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single, best response, multiple choice questions (MCQs) with 4 options (3 distractors and 1 correct answer) or 5 options (4 distractors) have been widely used as an assessment tool in medical education in India and globally. Writing plausible distractors is time consuming and the most difficult part of preparing MCQs. If the number of options can be reduced to 3, it will make preparing MCQs less difficult and time consuming, thus reducing the likelihood of flaws in writing MCQs. We reviewed the literature to find out if the number of options in MCQ test items could be reduced to 3 without affecting the quality of the test.
METHODS: A systematic database search was done using the following question as a framework: How many options are optimal for multiple choice questions? Theoretical, analytical and empirical studies, which addressed this issue, were included in the review.
RESULTS: There was no significant change in the psychometric properties of the 3 options test when compared with 4 and 5 options. MCQs with 3 options improved the efficiency of the test as well as its administration compared with 4- or 5-option MCQs. MCQs with 3 options had a higher efficiency because fewer distractors needed to be prepared, took up less space and required less reading time, decreased the time required to develop the items and the time to administer, and more items could be administered in a given time thus increasing the content sampled.
CONCLUSION: Our review of the literature suggests that MCQs with 3 options provide a similar quality of test as that with 4- or 5-option MCQs. We suggest that MCQs with 3 options should be preferred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19004145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Natl Med J India        ISSN: 0970-258X            Impact factor:   0.537


  17 in total

1.  The influence of question design on the response to self-assessment in www.elearnSCI.org: a submodule pilot study.

Authors:  N Liu; X-W Li; M-W Zhou; F Biering-Sørensen
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 2.772

2.  A Novel Multiple Choice Question Generation Strategy: Alternative Uses for Controlled Vocabulary Thesauri in Biomedical-Sciences Education.

Authors:  Marcelo A Lopetegui; Barbara A Lara; Po-Yin Yen; Ümit V Çatalyürek; Philip R O Payne
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2015-11-05

3.  Medication knowledge, certainty, and risk of errors in health care: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Bjoerg O Simonsen; Inger Johansson; Gro K Daehlin; Lene Merete Osvik; Per G Farup
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Identification of technical item flaws leads to improvement of the quality of single best Multiple Choice Questions.

Authors:  Humaira Fayyaz Khan; Khalid Farooq Danish; Azra Saeed Awan; Masood Anwar
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  Faculty development programs improve the quality of Multiple Choice Questions items' writing.

Authors:  Hamza Mohammad Abdulghani; Farah Ahmad; Mohammad Irshad; Mahmoud Salah Khalil; Ghadeer Khalid Al-Shaikh; Sadiqa Syed; Abdulmajeed Abdurrahman Aldrees; Norah Alrowais; Shafiul Haque
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value.

Authors:  Bonnie R Rush; David C Rankin; Brad J White
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study.

Authors:  Bhavisha Vegada; Apexa Shukla; Ajeetkumar Khilnani; Jaykaran Charan; Chetna Desai
Journal:  Indian J Pharmacol       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.200

8.  Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple choice questions.

Authors:  Nourelhouda A A Rahma; Mahdi M A Shamad; Muawia E A Idris; Omer Abdelgadir Elfaki; Walyedldin E M Elfakey; Karimeldin M A Salih
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2017-04-10

9.  Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course.

Authors:  Kenneth Royal; David Dorman
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2018-06-09

10.  An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams.

Authors:  James M Kilgour; Saadia Tayyaba
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.