Item Analysis of Multiple-Choice Questions in Pharmacology in an Indian Medical School
Open accessAbstract
Introduction Student assessment by multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is an integral part of student evaluation in medicine. The medical teacher should be trained to construct an item with proper stem and valid options. Periodic item analyses will make the process of assessment more meaningful. Hence, we conducted the study to analyze MCQs (item analysis) tested on a batch of MBBS students in pharmacology in their three internal assessment examinations. Methods The study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology of a medical college in Mangaluru on 150 students. The MCQs of the three internal assessment examinations (20 each) respectively were analyzed. We analyzed each question for difficulty index (DI), discrimination index (DsI), and distracter efficacy or functionality and expressed the percentage results. Results The DI was in an acceptable range of 60, 75, and 90%, respectively, in the three internal assessments. The percentage of “too difficult” questions was 10, 20, and 10% and the average DsI was 0.32 ± 0.04, 0.28 ± 0.02, and 0.26 ± 0.02, respectively. In the second and third internal assessments, 95% of questions had functional distracters, while in the first internal assessment, only 60% of questions had functional distracters. Conclusion We conclude from our study that even though the items (MCQs) framed for the internal assessments were in the acceptable range of quality in terms of the parameters assessed, we must improve MCQ’s construction in selecting distracters in some topics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Item analysis provides feedback about item construction and its validity and reliability after it appears in an examination.
“Item analysis provides feedback about item construction and its validity and reliability after it appears in an examination [5, 35, 36].”
From AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs (2024) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Tarrant, M., Ware, J. S., & Mohammed, A. M. (2009) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-40 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency.
Hingorjo, M. R., & Jaleel, F. (2012) · PubMed · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Kumar, P., Gajjar, S., Sharma, R., & Rana, M. (2014) · Indian Journal of Community Medicine · doi:10.4103/0970-0218.126347 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions- An Assessment of the Assessment Tool. -
Mehta, G., & Mokhasi, V. (2014) · International Journal of Health Sciences and Research · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Correlation between difficulty & discrimination indices of MCQs in formative exam in Physiology
Pande, S., Pande, S. R., Parate, V., Nikam, A. P., & Sh, A. (2013) · South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education · doi:10.4038/seajme.v7i1.149 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Karelia, B. (2013) · International e-Journal of Science Medicine & Education · doi:10.56026/imu.7.2.41 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Itemized Analysis of Questions of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Exam
25, S. S., Patel, K., & Mahajan, N. (2012) · International Journal of Scientific Research · doi:10.15373/22778179/feb2013/94 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Item analysis of published MCQs.
Sarin, Y. K., Khurana, M., Natu, M., Thomas, A. G., & Singh, T. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Ananthakrishnan N, Medical Education -Principles and Practice. In: Ananthakrishnan N, Sethuraman KR, Kumar S, eds. Item Analysis: Validation and Banking of MCQs. 2nd ed. All India press; 2000:131-137
- Singh T, Gupta P, Singh D, Test and item analysis. In: Principles of Medical Education. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2009 ; pp. 70-77
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs
Rezigalla, A. A. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05250-3 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Assessment of distractor efficiency of MCQS in item analysis.
Ansari, M., Sadaf, R., Akbar, A., Rehman, S., Chaudhry, Z. R., & Shakir, S. (2022) · The Professional Medical Journal · doi:10.29309/tpmj/2022.29.05.6955 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Wahab, A. A., Hasibuan, A., Siregar, R., Risnawaty, & Ningsih, T. Z. (2023) · Journal of Education Research and Evaluation · doi:10.23887/jere.v7i3.59239 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Study on item analysis of multiple – choice questions amongst the undergraduate dental students
Lama, C. P., Kharbuja, R., Karki, D., & Dhungel, S. (2023) · Nepal Medical College Journal · doi:10.3126/nmcj.v25i4.60876 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Karadağ, N. (2021) · Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.51948/auad.920055 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Multiple-Choice Questions in Basic Biomedical Science Module
Permasutha, M. B., Rahayu, G. R., Giri, M. K. W., & Pradiptha, D. A. G. F. (2024) · Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran · doi:10.23887/jpp.v57i1.63314 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Rehman, Q. U., Humayun, F., Shah, M. A. A., Ghani, S., Afzal, K., & Humayun, R. (2022) · Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · doi:10.53350/pjmhs221621120 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Zahran, E., & Mustafa, A. (2023) · Educational Evaluation and Learning Management Journal · doi:10.21608/eelmj.2023.172846.1001
Ghodke, M., Ausekar, S., Giri, P. A., & Siddiqui, A. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.105651
- Authors
- Adiga, M. N. S., Acharya, S., & Holla, R.
- Affiliations
- Department of Pharmacology, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Deralakatte, Nitte (Deemed to be) University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
- Nitte University (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Acharya, Swathi
- Venue
- Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU
- Publisher
- Scientific Scholar
- Published
- 2021-02-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 130-135
- ISSN
- 2582-4287 (ISSN-L)
- 2582-4953
- OpenAlex
- W3127344864
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Keywords
- multiple-choice questions, item analysis, pharmacology education, medical students, internal evaluation, item difficulty index, discrimination index, question formation, medical education assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
