Item analysis as tool to validate multiple choice question bank in pharmacology
Open accessAbstract
Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a common method for formative and summative assessment of medical students. Item analysis enables identifying good MCQs based on difficulty index (DIF I), discrimination index (DI), distracter efficiency (DE). The objective of this study was to assess the quality of MCQs currently in use in pharmacology by item analysis and develop a MCQ bank with quality items.Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 148 second year MBBS students at NKP Salve institute of medical sciences from January 2018 to August 2018. Forty MCQs twenty each from the two term examination of pharmacology were taken for item analysis A correct response to an item was awarded one mark and each incorrect response was awarded zero. Each item was analyzed using Microsoft excel sheet for three parameters such as DIF I, DI, and DE.Results: In present study mean and standard deviation (SD) for Difficulty index (%) Discrimination index (%) and Distractor efficiency (%) were 64.54±19.63, 0.26±0.16 and 66.54±34.59 respectively. Out of 40 items large number of MCQs has acceptable level of DIF (70%) and good in discriminating higher and lower ability students DI (77.5%). Distractor efficiency related to presence of zero or 1 non-functional distrator (NFD) is 80%.Conclusions: The study showed that item analysis is a valid tool to identify quality items which regularly incorporated can help to develop a very useful, valid and a reliable question bank.
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?
The DIS ranged from 1.0 to − 1.0.
“The DIS ranged from 1.0 to − 1.0.”
From AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
A positive DIS indicates that high achievers answered the item more correctly than lower achievers.
“A positive DIS indicates that high achievers answered the item more correctly than lower achievers and vice versa [35, 44].”
From AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
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
The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items.
Kelley, T. L. (1939) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057123 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Considine, J., Botti, M. A., & Thomas, S. A. (2005) · Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia · doi:10.1016/s1322-7696(08)60478-3 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Validity of a Taxonomy of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Rules
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989) · Applied Measurement in Education · doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0201_4 · Cited by 217 · 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
Angadi, N. B., Nagabhushana, A., & Hashilkar, N. K. (2018) · International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20183923 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Suryadevara, V. K., & Bano, Z. (2018) · International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20183004 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Tan LT, McAleer JJ. Final FRCR Examination Board. The introduction of single best answer questions as a test of knowledge in the final examination for fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists in Clinical Oncology. Clin Oncol. 2008;20:571-6.
- Collins J. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. Radiographics. 2006;26:543-51.
- Sidine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, Validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005;12:19-24.
- Karelia BN, Pillai, Vegada BN. The levels of difficulty and discrimination indices and relationship between them in four response type multiple choice questions of pharmacology summative tests of II MBBS students. IJSME. 2013;6:41-6.
- Kolte V. Item analysis of Multiple choice questions in Physiology examination. Int J Basic Applied Medical Res. 2015;4:320-6.
- Patil VC, Patil HV. Item analysis of medicine multiple choice questions (MCQs) for undergraduate (3rd year MBBS) students Res J Phar Biol Chem Sci. 2015;6:1242-51.
- Tarrant M, Ware J, Mohammed AM. An assessment of functioning and nonfunctioning distracters in multiple choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:1-8.
- Dufresne RJ, Jeonard WJ, Gerace WJ. Making sense of students answers to multiple choice Questions. Phys Teach. 2002;40:174-80.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Item analysis of multiple choice questions: A quality assurance test for an assessment tool
Kumar, D., Jaipurkar, R., Shekhar, A., Sikri, G., & Srinivas, V. (2021) · Medical Journal Armed Forces India · doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.11.007 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
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
- Authors
- Date, A. P., Borkar, A. S., Badwaik, R. T., Siddiqui, R. A., Shende, T. R., & Dashputra, A. V.
- Affiliations
- NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Lata Mangeshkar Hospital (IN)
- ORCID
- Dashputra, Amruta V.
- Venue
- International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Medip Academy
- Published
- 2019-08-28
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1999
- ISSN
- 2279-0780 (ISSN-L)
- 2319-2003
- OpenAlex
- W2970595699
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- item analysis, multiple-choice questions, question bank, pharmacology education, item difficulty index, discrimination index, distractor efficiency, medical students
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
