Assessment of multiple-choice questions by item analysis for medical students’ examinations

M. Nojomi, M. Mahmoudi
{"title":"Assessment of multiple-choice questions by item analysis for medical students’ examinations","authors":"M. Nojomi, M. Mahmoudi","doi":"10.34172/rdme.2022.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a common assessment method, and it is crucial to design them carefully. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the item analysis of MCQ exams in clerkship tests for general medicine students. Methods: Following a cross-sectional study, a total of 1202 MCQs designed for fourth-year clerkship medical students in the second semester of 2019 were analyzed. Difficulty and discrimination indices of student scores and taxonomy levels were then computed. Furthermore, the prepared standard structural Millman checklist was utilized. Results: Of the 1202 MCQs, according to difficulty indices, most questions (666) were considered acceptable (55.39%). In terms of the discrimination index (DI), 530 (44.09%) questions had an average discrimination coefficient. Additionally, 215 (17.88%) had a negative or poor DI and required revision or elimination from the tests bank. Of the 1202 MCQs, 669 (50.7 %) were designed at a lower cognitive level (taxonomy I), 174 (14.5 %) belonged to taxonomy II, and 419 (34.8%) of the questions had taxonomy III. Moreover, according to the structural flaws of the Millman checklist, the most common structural flaw was a lack of negative choices for Stems 1127 (93.8 %), while vertical options 376 (31.3%) were the least common. Conclusion: Based on the results, it is recommended that easy questions and negative/poor DI of items, a high level of Bloom’s taxonomy type I, and questions with unstructured flaws be reviewed and reconstructed to improve the quality of the question banks. Holding training courses on designing test questions could effectively improve the quality of the questions.","PeriodicalId":21087,"journal":{"name":"Research and Development in Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Development in Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/rdme.2022.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a common assessment method, and it is crucial to design them carefully. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the item analysis of MCQ exams in clerkship tests for general medicine students. Methods: Following a cross-sectional study, a total of 1202 MCQs designed for fourth-year clerkship medical students in the second semester of 2019 were analyzed. Difficulty and discrimination indices of student scores and taxonomy levels were then computed. Furthermore, the prepared standard structural Millman checklist was utilized. Results: Of the 1202 MCQs, according to difficulty indices, most questions (666) were considered acceptable (55.39%). In terms of the discrimination index (DI), 530 (44.09%) questions had an average discrimination coefficient. Additionally, 215 (17.88%) had a negative or poor DI and required revision or elimination from the tests bank. Of the 1202 MCQs, 669 (50.7 %) were designed at a lower cognitive level (taxonomy I), 174 (14.5 %) belonged to taxonomy II, and 419 (34.8%) of the questions had taxonomy III. Moreover, according to the structural flaws of the Millman checklist, the most common structural flaw was a lack of negative choices for Stems 1127 (93.8 %), while vertical options 376 (31.3%) were the least common. Conclusion: Based on the results, it is recommended that easy questions and negative/poor DI of items, a high level of Bloom’s taxonomy type I, and questions with unstructured flaws be reviewed and reconstructed to improve the quality of the question banks. Holding training courses on designing test questions could effectively improve the quality of the questions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学生考试多项选择题的项目分析评价
背景:选择题(MCQ)是一种常见的评估方法,仔细设计它至关重要。因此,本研究旨在确定普通医学生文书考试中MCQ考试的项目分析。方法:通过横断面研究,对2019年下学期为四年级实习医学生设计的1202份MCQ进行分析。然后计算学生成绩和分类水平的难度和辨别指数。此外,还使用了编制的标准结构Millman检查表。结果:在1202个MCQ中,根据难度指数,大多数问题(666个)被认为是可接受的(55.39%)。就判别指数(DI)而言,530个问题(44.09%)的判别系数平均。此外,215人(17.88%)的DI呈阴性或较差,需要从测试库中进行修订或删除。在1202个MCQ中,669个(50.7%)是在较低的认知水平(分类法I)设计的,174个(14.5%)属于分类法II,419个(34.8%)问题属于分类法III。此外,根据Millman检查表的结构缺陷,最常见的结构缺陷是缺乏对Stems 1127(93.8%)的负面选择,而垂直选项376(31.3%)最不常见。结论:根据研究结果,建议对容易的问题和项目的负/差DI、高水平的Bloom分类I型以及有非结构化缺陷的问题进行审查和重构,以提高题库的质量。举办试题设计培训班可以有效地提高试题质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
The role of academic stress and scientific motivation in predicting research spirit among the students of medicalsciences The relationship between identity development and medical students’ performance in technology-integrated English language classrooms Challenges in the educational system of maxillofacial surgery residency training in Iran: Monodisciplinarity system or dual degree system? The use of social media (communication applications) in the training of medical students, especially oral and maxillofacial surgery residents in Iran Challenges and acceptance of e-teaching among medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1