Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice questions used for final exams at the Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Khalid University
Abstract
Background: The multiple-choice questions (MCQs) part of the final exam in internal medicine at the College of Medicine, King Khalid University is composed of 100 questions of the one best answer type with four options. Although some basic forms of item analysis have been carried out by the department of internal medicine before, the data generated has not been used regularly to assess the quality of the questions or for feedback for the purpose of quality improvement. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of MCQs used in the final exam in internal medicine during the 1 st week of January 2013. Methods: The total number of the students of this batch was 58, and the total number of MCQs was 100. Item analysis was done using Microsoft Excel 2007. The parameters obtained included difficulty index, discrimination index, point biserial correlation, and reliability of the exam using Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-20), in addition to analysis of distractors. Results: The mean difficulty of the questions was 0.55 (STD = 0.2) and the mean discrimination index was 0.24 (STD = 0.2) with 41 questions having values below 0.20. Regarding point biserial correlation, the mean was 0.16 (STD = 0.12). KR-20 was found to be 0.79; indicating good reliability and the student scores were believed to be reliable. From the 300 distractors assessed, 41% were nonfunctioning. The mean number of functioning distractors per item was 1.76. Conclusion: The MCQs exam was quite reliable, and the difficulty of the questions was reasonable. The discrimination power of most of the questions was acceptable; however, a relatively high proportion of the questions had unacceptable discrimination index values.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 range of DIS can be categorized into excellent (≥ 0.35), Good (0.25-0.34), Acceptable (0.21-0.24), and poor (≤ 0.20).
“The range of DIS can be categorized into excellent (≥ 0.35), Good (0.25–0.34), Acceptable (0.21–0.24), and poor (≤ 0.20) [45, 46].”
From AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
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
Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple choice questions
Rahma, A., Shamad, M., Idris, M., et al. (2017) · Advances in Medical Education and Practice · doi:10.2147/amep.s128318 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationItem Analysis: Concept and Application
Rezigalla, A. A. (2022) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.100138 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Salih, K. M. A., Jibo, A. M., Ishaq, M., Khan, S., Mohammed, O., Alshahrani, A. M., & Abbas, M. M. (2020) · Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_358_20 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Medical Education for the 21st Century
Firstenberg, M. S., & Stawicki, S. P. (2021) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.95701 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions in Pharmacology
Uddin, I., Uddin, I., Rehman, I. U., Siyar, M., & Mehboob, U. (2020) · Journal of Saidu Medical College · doi:10.52206/jsmc.2020.10.2.320 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Hadhoud, R. (2022) · Mağallaẗ Buḥūṯ Al-Taʿlim wa Al-Ibtikār · doi:10.21608/erji.2022.228289 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Wardi, Z., & Hidayah, N. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1539/1/012079 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Zhao, X., Khilnani, A., Weiner, D. L., et al. (2024) · AEM Education and Training · doi:10.1002/aet2.10938 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Elfaki, O., Bahamdan, K., & Al-Humayed, S.
- Affiliations
- King Khalid University (SA)
- Venue
- Sudan Medical Monitor
- Publisher
- CLOCKSS Archive
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 123
- ISSN
- 1858-5000 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2265969085
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sudan Medical Monitor (publishedVersion)
- 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, exam question quality, discrimination index, item difficulty, point-biserial correlation, distractor analysis, 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