Literature DB >> 29666684

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

Deena Kheyami1, Ahmed Jaradat2, Tareq Al-Shibani3, Fuad A Ali1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to carry out a post-validation item analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs) in medical examinations in order to evaluate correlations between item difficulty, item discrimination and distraction effectiveness so as to determine whether questions should be included, modified or discarded. In addition, the optimal number of options per MCQ was analysed.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain. A total of 800 MCQs and 4,000 distractors were analysed between November 2013 and June 2016.
RESULTS: The mean difficulty index ranged from 36.70-73.14%. The mean discrimination index ranged from 0.20-0.34. The mean distractor efficiency ranged from 66.50-90.00%. Of the items, 48.4%, 35.3%, 11.4%, 3.9% and 1.1% had zero, one, two, three and four nonfunctional distractors (NFDs), respectively. Using three or four rather than five options in each MCQ resulted in 95% or 83.6% of items having zero NFDs, respectively. The distractor efficiency was 91.87%, 85.83% and 64.13% for difficult, acceptable and easy items, respectively (P <0.005). Distractor efficiency was 83.33%, 83.24% and 77.56% for items with excellent, acceptable and poor discrimination, respectively (P <0.005). The average Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability coefficient was 0.76.
CONCLUSION: A considerable number of the MCQ items were within acceptable ranges. However, some items needed to be discarded or revised. Using three or four rather than five options in MCQs is recommended to reduce the number of NFDs and improve the overall quality of the examination.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Academic Performance; Bahrain; Discriminant Analysis; Educational Measurement; Examination Questions; Medical Education; Psychometrics

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29666684      PMCID: PMC5892816          DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2018.18.01.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J        ISSN: 2075-051X


  11 in total

1.  Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency.

Authors:  Mozaffer Rahim Hingorjo; Farhan Jaleel
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 0.781

2.  Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper.

Authors:  Si-Mui Sim; Raja Isaiah Rasiah
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.473

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

Authors:  Marie Tarrant; James Ware
Journal:  Nurse Educ Today       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 3.442

4.  Cronbach's alpha.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-02-22

5.  Item analysis and evaluation in the examinations in the faculty of medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University.

Authors:  L Tomak; Y Bek
Journal:  Niger J Clin Pract       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.968

6.  An investigation of three types of multiple choice questions.

Authors:  E N Skakun; E M Nanson; W C Taylor; S Kling
Journal:  Annu Conf Res Med Educ       Date:  1977

7.  An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Marie Tarrant; James Ware; Ahmed M Mohammed
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2009-07-07       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Item analysis of in use multiple choice questions in pharmacology.

Authors:  Mandeep Kaur; Shweta Singla; Rajiv Mahajan
Journal:  Int J Appl Basic Med Res       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

9.  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

10.  Item and Test Analysis to Identify Quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from an Assessment of Medical Students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

Authors:  Sanju Gajjar; Rashmi Sharma; Pradeep Kumar; Manish Rana
Journal:  Indian J Community Med       Date:  2014-01
View more
  5 in total

1.  Item analysis and optimizing multiple-choice questions for a viable question bank in ophthalmology: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Subrahmanya K Bhat; Kishan H L Prasad
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.848

2.  Evaluating the Quality of Multiple Choice Question in Paediatric Dentistry Postgraduate Examinations.

Authors:  Mawlood Kowash; Iyad Hussein; Manal Al Halabi
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2019-09-08

3.  Quality of multiple-choice questions in medical internship qualification examination determined by item response theory at Debre Tabor University, Ethiopia.

Authors:  Lalem Menber Belay; Tegbar Yigzaw Sendekie; Fantu Abebe Eyowas
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 3.263

4.  Best Practices of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centres (WHOCCs) in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Authors:  Mohamed Hany Shehata; Archana Prabu Kumar; Ahmed Mohammed Al Ansari; Abdelhalim Deifalla; Hani Salem Atwa
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2022-09-30

5.  Psychometric Characteristics of Oral Pathology Test Items in the Dental Hygiene Curriculum-A Longitudinal Analysis.

Authors:  Mythily Srinivasan
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-13
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.