Literature DB >> 20053488

A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments.

Marie Tarrant1, James Ware.   

Abstract

In multiple-choice tests, four-option items are the standard in nursing education. There are few evidence-based reasons, however, for MCQs to have four or more options as studies have shown that three-option items perform equally as well and the additional options most often do not improve test reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the psychometric properties of four-option items with the same items rewritten as three-option items. Using item-analysis data to eliminate the distractor with the lowest response rate, we compared three- and four-option versions of 41 multiple-choice items administered to two student cohorts over two subsequent academic years. Removing the non-functioning distractor resulted in minimal changes in item difficulty and discrimination. Three-option items contained more functioning distractors despite having fewer distractors overall. Existing distractors became more discriminating when infrequently selected distractors were removed from items. Overall, three-option items perform equally as well as four-option items. Since three-option items require less time to develop and administer and additional options provide no psychometric advantage, teachers are encouraged to adopt three-option items as the standard on multiple-choice tests. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20053488     DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nurse Educ Today        ISSN: 0260-6917            Impact factor:   3.442


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions at the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.

Authors:  Deena Kheyami; Ahmed Jaradat; Tareq Al-Shibani; Fuad A Ali
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2018-04-04

3.  The Impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality.

Authors:  Syed Haris Ali; Kenneth G Ruit
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2015-10

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Analysis of MCQ and distractor use in a large first year Health Faculty Foundation Program: assessing the effects of changing from five to four options.

Authors:  Nicolette Fozzard; Andrew Pearson; Eugene du Toit; Helen Naug; William Wen; Ian R Peak
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  How important is distractor efficiency for grading Best Answer Questions?

Authors:  Thomas Puthiaparampil; Mizanur Rahman
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Is a picture worth a thousand words: an analysis of the difficulty and discrimination parameters of illustrated vs. text-alone vignettes in histology multiple choice questions.

Authors:  Jane Holland; Robin O'Sullivan; Richard Arnett
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.463

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.