Analytic Assessment Of Multiple-Choice Tests

Authors

Maryam Sadat Kaveh Tabatabaee1,*, Mohammad Hossein Bahreyni Toosi2, Akbar Derakhshan3, Mohammad Khajeh Dalloee4, Hassan Gholami5
1Faculty member of nursery faculty of Mashad University of Medical Science.
2Assistant professor of Mashad University of MedicalScience.
3Associate professor of Mashad University of Medical Science,Director of mashad educationaldevelopment center.
4Assistant professor of Mashad University of Medical SCience.
5Faculty member of nursery faculty of Mashad University of MedicalSCience.
*Corresponding Author: Faculty member of nursery faculty of Mashad University of Medical Science. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Medical Education for Future Demands:Vol. 2, issue 2; e105008
Published online:Mar 18, 2009
Article type:Reply
Received:Mar 18, 2009
Accepted:Mar 18, 2009
How to Cite:Kaveh Tabatabaee MS, Bahreyni Toosi MH, Derakhshan A, Khajeh Dalloee M, Gholami H. Analytic Assessment Of Multiple-Choice Tests. J Med Edu. 2003;2(2):e105008. doi: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v2i2.883

Abstract

Background: Multiple  choice tests (MCT),are widely known and  applied as useful evaluation tests in the field of education  especially  in Medical  Science.  Items on a multiple-choice test consist of a stem, which is followed by a correct answer as well as three to jour distracters. Items on a well-written multiple-choice test will have stems that are precise and clear, one answer that is clearly correct or best, and distracters that are plausible.Purpose: The purpose of the present study is conducting item and test analysis to 24 MCTs given in first semester of 2000-2001 educational year in medical faculty of Mashad University of Medical Science.Methods: Data of this descriptive study were composed of 1496 MCQs gathered from  2092 answer sheets of 24 MCTs obtained from educational department of the medical faculty.A split-half method of reliability was employed to calculate reliability coefficient for MCTs. Items Difficulty and Discrimination index also were calculated for questions. Further studies should be undertaken for developments the methods for evaluation of validity, assessment of distracters and structural principles in MCTs .Results: Mean reliability coefficient of the exams was 0.72±0.13 and In more than 50% of cases, reliability coefficient was greater than 0.7. There was a significant difference between basic science exams and clinical clerkship exams in Reliability coefficient (P=0.001). Mean standard error a/measurement (SEM) was 3.51±1.11. In  52.2%  of the cases, difficulty of MCQs was inappropriate and 49.3% of questions had inadequate discriminative power to discern between poor students and good students.Conclusion: Our finding indicate that only 33% of studied MCQs have desirable or acceptable item difficulty and discrimination indices both and 34.9% of those have no desirable or acceptable item difficulty neither acceptable discrimination index. Having subjects respond reliably on a measure is a great sta11, but there is another  conceptneeded to gel down really well named validity.

Highlights

Fulltext

The body of the article can be found in the PDF file.

References

  • 1.
    References are available in the PDF file.

Copyright

© 2003, Author(s). This open-access article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which allows for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Similar Articles

15
May
2013

Analytic assessment of multiple choice questions (MCQ) of faculties' members' scholarship in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, 2010-2011‎

Reza Pourmirza Kalhori‎,
Fatemeh Darabi ,
Farah Roshanpour‎,
Mansour Rezaei

Pourmirza Kalhori‎ R, Darabi ‎ F, Roshanpour‎ F, Rezaei ‎ M. Analytic assessment of multiple choice questions (MCQ) of faculties' members' scholarship in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, 2010-2011‎. J Clin Res Paramed Sci. 2013;2(1):e82210. doi:

5
Apr
2009

Assessment Of Distracters In Multiple-Choice Tests

Maryam Sadat Kaveh Tabatabaee,
Akbar Derakhshan

Kaveh Tabatabaee MS, Derakhshan A. Assessment Of Distracters In Multiple-Choice Tests. J Med Edu. 2002;2(1):e104980. doi: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v2i1.891

16
May
2015

Correlation of quality and quantity index of multiple choice questions exams of residency promotion in Kermanshah University of medical sciences, 2013

Reza Pourmirza Kalhori,
Mansour Rezaie,
Amir Reza Shojee Moghadam,
Vida Sepahi,
Lida Memar Eftekhari

Pourmirza Kalhori R, Rezaie M, Shojee Moghadam AR, Sepahi V, Memar Eftekhari L. Correlation of quality and quantity index of multiple choice questions exams of residency promotion in Kermanshah University of medical sciences, 2013. J Clin Res Paramed Sci. 2015;4(1):e81958. doi:

31
Mar
2012
Analysis of multiple choice questions on health sciences at Health Faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009)

Analysis of multiple choice questions on health sciences at Health Faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009)

Michael Mikhailovich Alshibaya,
Maxim Leonidovich Mamalyga,
Dzhanybek Yerikovich Musin,
Alexey Vladimirovich Dorofeev,
Gela Guramovich Getsadze,
Konstantin Vladislavovich Krymov
,et al.

Alshibaya MM, Mamalyga ML, Musin DY, Dorofeev AV, Getsadze GG, et al. Analysis of multiple choice questions on health sciences at Health Faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009). Multidiscip Cardio Annal. 2021;12(2):e115638. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/mca.115638

31
Mar
2012

Analysis of multiple choice questions on health sciences at Health Faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009)

M Rahmati Yamchi,
M Rahbani Noubar,
R Najafipour,
M Mobasser,
N Zarghami

Rahmati Yamchi M, Rahbani Noubar M, Najafipour R, Mobasser M, Zarghami N. Analysis of multiple choice questions on health sciences at Health Faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009). J Inflamm Dis. 2012;16(2):e155694. doi:

More by these authors

Maryam Sadat Kaveh TabatabaeePubMedScholar
Mohammad Hossein Bahreyni ToosiPubMedScholar
Akbar DerakhshanPubMedScholar
Mohammad Khajeh DalloeePubMedScholar
Hassan GholamiPubMedScholar
Share
Cited by
Metrics