解剖学多项选择题项目分析的横断面研究

V. Shenoy, Pallavi Ravi, Dane Chandy
{"title":"解剖学多项选择题项目分析的横断面研究","authors":"V. Shenoy, Pallavi Ravi, Dane Chandy","doi":"10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_9_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used tools to test knowledge. Pre- and postvalidation of the MCQs are prerequisites to maintaining the standard of the questions. Prevalidation is done by subject experts before the test. Postvalidation (item analysis) uses three indices – item difficulty index (P), item discrimination index (D), and distractor efficiency (DE). This study was done with the aim to assess the quality of MCQs used during the formative assessments using item analysis indices and to compare the indices in prevalidated and nonvalidated MCQs. Methodology: The study used two sets of MCQ tests, conducted as a part of formative assessments for phase I MBBS students in the department of anatomy. Set 1 comprised nonvalidated MCQs and set 2 comprised prevalidated MCQs. The three indices were calculated for all the questions in both sets. Results: The average P value for set 1 was 57.62 ± 21.90 and that for set 2 was 59.27 ± 20.32. Average D value for set 1 was found to be 0.23 ± 0.36 and that for set 2 was 0.29 ± 0.15. In set 1, 37.5% of the MCQs had 100% DE, whereas, in set 2, 60% of the MCQs had 100% DE. Thirty percent of the distractors were nonfunctional in set 1, but in set 2, only 16.7% of the distractors were nonfunctional. Conclusions: Study results favor prevalidation and postvalidation of MCQs to develop a good-quality MCQ bank. It is imperative to use the MCQs having moderate difficulty, good discrimination power, and with all functional distractors in any given assessment.","PeriodicalId":52750,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Clinical Anatomy","volume":"12 1","pages":"94 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A cross-sectional study on item analysis of prevalidated and nonvalidated anatomy multiple-choice questions\",\"authors\":\"V. Shenoy, Pallavi Ravi, Dane Chandy\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_9_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used tools to test knowledge. Pre- and postvalidation of the MCQs are prerequisites to maintaining the standard of the questions. Prevalidation is done by subject experts before the test. Postvalidation (item analysis) uses three indices – item difficulty index (P), item discrimination index (D), and distractor efficiency (DE). This study was done with the aim to assess the quality of MCQs used during the formative assessments using item analysis indices and to compare the indices in prevalidated and nonvalidated MCQs. Methodology: The study used two sets of MCQ tests, conducted as a part of formative assessments for phase I MBBS students in the department of anatomy. Set 1 comprised nonvalidated MCQs and set 2 comprised prevalidated MCQs. The three indices were calculated for all the questions in both sets. Results: The average P value for set 1 was 57.62 ± 21.90 and that for set 2 was 59.27 ± 20.32. Average D value for set 1 was found to be 0.23 ± 0.36 and that for set 2 was 0.29 ± 0.15. In set 1, 37.5% of the MCQs had 100% DE, whereas, in set 2, 60% of the MCQs had 100% DE. Thirty percent of the distractors were nonfunctional in set 1, but in set 2, only 16.7% of the distractors were nonfunctional. Conclusions: Study results favor prevalidation and postvalidation of MCQs to develop a good-quality MCQ bank. It is imperative to use the MCQs having moderate difficulty, good discrimination power, and with all functional distractors in any given assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Journal of Clinical Anatomy\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"94 - 97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National Journal of Clinical Anatomy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_9_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Clinical Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/NJCA.NJCA_9_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:选择题(MCQ)是一种广泛使用的测试知识的工具。MCQ的预验证和后验证是保持问题标准的先决条件。测试前由受试者专家进行预验证。后验证(项目分析)使用三个指标——项目难度指数(P)、项目辨别指数(D)和干扰物效率(DE)。本研究旨在使用项目分析指数评估形成性评估中使用的MCQ的质量,并比较预先验证和未验证的MCQ中的指数。方法:该研究使用了两组MCQ测试,作为解剖学系MBBS一期学生形成性评估的一部分。集合1包括未验证的MCQ,集合2包括预先验证的MCQs。这三个指数是为两组中的所有问题计算的。结果:第1组的平均P值为57.62±21.90,第2组为59.27±20.32。第1组的平均D值为0.23±0.36,第2组为0.29±0.15。在第1组中,37.5%的MCQ具有100%的DE,而在第2组中,60%的MCQ有100%的DE。在第1集中,30%的干扰物不起作用,但在第2集中,只有16.7%的干扰器不起作用。结论:研究结果有利于MCQ的预验证和后验证,以开发一个高质量的MCQ库。在任何给定的评估中,必须使用具有中等难度、良好辨别能力并具有所有功能干扰物的MCQ。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A cross-sectional study on item analysis of prevalidated and nonvalidated anatomy multiple-choice questions
Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used tools to test knowledge. Pre- and postvalidation of the MCQs are prerequisites to maintaining the standard of the questions. Prevalidation is done by subject experts before the test. Postvalidation (item analysis) uses three indices – item difficulty index (P), item discrimination index (D), and distractor efficiency (DE). This study was done with the aim to assess the quality of MCQs used during the formative assessments using item analysis indices and to compare the indices in prevalidated and nonvalidated MCQs. Methodology: The study used two sets of MCQ tests, conducted as a part of formative assessments for phase I MBBS students in the department of anatomy. Set 1 comprised nonvalidated MCQs and set 2 comprised prevalidated MCQs. The three indices were calculated for all the questions in both sets. Results: The average P value for set 1 was 57.62 ± 21.90 and that for set 2 was 59.27 ± 20.32. Average D value for set 1 was found to be 0.23 ± 0.36 and that for set 2 was 0.29 ± 0.15. In set 1, 37.5% of the MCQs had 100% DE, whereas, in set 2, 60% of the MCQs had 100% DE. Thirty percent of the distractors were nonfunctional in set 1, but in set 2, only 16.7% of the distractors were nonfunctional. Conclusions: Study results favor prevalidation and postvalidation of MCQs to develop a good-quality MCQ bank. It is imperative to use the MCQs having moderate difficulty, good discrimination power, and with all functional distractors in any given assessment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Incidence of Yq Microdeletion among Chattishgarh Population and Cast Based Distribution Morphometric study of nasal parameters in undergraduates at a medical university in central Uttar Pradesh A cadaveric series on urovascular anomalies Insertional footprint of achilles tendon on calcaneal tuberosity in South Indian population: A cadaveric study Novel finding: Hyo-mandibular ligament- A cadaveric study
×
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