Cited by 140Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Item and test analysis to identify quality multiple choice questions (MCQS) from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Open access
Kumar, Pradeep, Gajjar, Sanju, Sharma, Rashmi, Rana, Manish·2014·Indian Journal of Community Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used to assess students in different educational streams for their objectivity and wide reach of coverage in less time. However, the MCQs to be used must be of quality which depends upon its difficulty index (DIF I), discrimination index (DI) and distracter efficiency (DE). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MCQs or items and develop a pool of valid items by assessing with DIF I, DI and DE and also to revise/ store or discard items based on obtained results. SETTINGS: Study was conducted in a medical school of Ahmedabad. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An internal examination in Community Medicine was conducted after 40 hours teaching during 1(st) MBBS which was attended by 148 out of 150 students. Total 50 MCQs or items and 150 distractors were analyzed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data was entered and analyzed in MS Excel 2007 and simple proportions, mean, standard deviations, coefficient of variation were calculated and unpaired t test was applied. RESULTS: Out of 50 items, 24 had "good to excellent" DIF I (31 - 60%) and 15 had "good to excellent" DI (> 0.25). Mean DE was 88.6% considered as ideal/ acceptable and non functional distractors (NFD) were only 11.4%. Mean DI was 0.14. Poor DI (< 0.15) with negative DI in 10 items indicates poor preparedness of students and some issues with framing of at least some of the MCQs. Increased proportion of NFDs (incorrect alternatives selected by < 5% students) in an item decrease DE and makes it easier. There were 15 items with 17 NFDs, while rest items did not have any NFD with mean DE of 100%. CONCLUSION: Study emphasizes the selection of quality MCQs which truly assess the knowledge and are able to differentiate the students of different abilities in correct manner.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/0970-0218.126347

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Such findings were reported in anatomy exam [48], community Medicine [49], and multidisciplinary summative exams [50, 51] that were constructed traditionally.

    “Such findings were reported in anatomy exam [48], community Medicine [49], and multidisciplinary summative exams [50, 51] that were constructed traditionally.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]Manual of Basic Workshop in medical education technologies 2012 Ahmadabad Regional Training Centre Smt. NHL Medical College
  2. [11]Guilbert JJ Educational Hand Book for health professionals. WHO offset Publication 35 1981 1st ed Geneva World Health Organization 7348514

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, P., Gajjar, S., Sharma, R., & Rana, M.
Corresponding author
Kumar, Pradeep
Venue
Indian Journal of Community Medicine
Published
2014
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
17
ISSN
0970-0218 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044844953
Cited by
140
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
11.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Indian Journal of Community Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
multiple-choice questions, item analysis, test analysis, item difficulty index, discrimination index, distractor efficiency, medical student assessment, item quality

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