CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyHealth Education and Validation

Item analysis of in use multiple choice questions in pharmacology

Open access
Kaur, Mandeep, Singla, Shweta, Mahajan, Rajiv·2016·International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research
DOI 10.4103/2229-516x.186965PMC PMC4979297
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a common method of assessment of medical students. The quality of MCQs is determined by three parameters such as difficulty index (DIF I), discrimination index (DI), and distracter efficiency (DE). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess the quality of MCQs currently in use in pharmacology and discard the MCQs which are not found useful. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A class test of central nervous system unit was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology. This test comprised 50 MCQs/items and 150 distracters. A correct response to an item was awarded one mark with no negative marking for incorrect response. Each item was analyzed for three parameters such as DIF I, DI, and DE. RESULTS: DIF of 38 (76%) items was in the acceptable range (P = 30-70%), 11 (22%) items were too easy (P > 70%), and 1 (2%) item was too difficult (P < 30%). DI of 31 (62%) items was excellent (d > 0.35), of 12 (24%) items was good (d = 0.20-0.34), and of 7 (14%) items was poor (d < 0.20). A total of 50 items had 150 distracters. Among these, 27 (18%) were nonfunctional distracters (NFDs) and 123 (82%) were functional distracters. Items with one NFD were 11 and with two NFDs were 8. Based on these parameters, 6 items were discarded, 17 were revised, and 27 were kept for subsequent use. CONCLUSION: Item analysis is a valuable tool as it helps us to retain the valuable MCQs and discard the items which are not useful. It also helps in increasing our skills in test construction and identifies the specific areas of course content which need greater emphasis or clarity.

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 · 10.4103/2229-516x.186965

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • The range of item difficulty can be categorized as difficult (< 39), moderate (40-80), and easy (> 80).

    “The range of item difficulty can be categorized as difficult (< 39), moderate (40–80), and easy (> 80) [37, 43].”

    From AI in medical education: uses of AI in construction type A MCQs (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

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

1 of the 7 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kaur, M., Singla, S., & Mahajan, R.
Affiliations
Adesh University (IN)
Corresponding author
Kaur, Mandeep
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
170
ISSN
2229-516X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4103/2229-516x.186965
PMC
PMC4979297
OpenAlex
W2489455349
Cited by
66
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (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
multiple-choice questions, item analysis, test item quality, item difficulty index, discrimination index, pharmacology education, medical student assessment, test development

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