Cited by 9Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice questions used for final exams at the Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, King Khalid University

Elfaki, OmerA, Bahamdan, KhalidA, Al-Humayed, Suliman·2015·Sudan Medical Monitor

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

Crossref · 10.4103/1858-5000.171863

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elfaki, O., Bahamdan, K., & Al-Humayed, S.
Affiliations
King Khalid University (SA)
Venue
Sudan Medical Monitor
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