Cited by 96Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Item analysis of multiple choice questions: Assessing an assessment tool in medical students

Open access
Rao, Chandrika, Kishan Prasad, HL, Sajitha, K, Permi, Harish, Shetty, Jayaprakash·2016·International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches

Abstract

Aim: Assessment is a very important component of the medical course curriculum. Item analysis is the process of collecting, summarizing, and using information from student's responses to assess the quality of multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Difficulty index (P) and discrimination index (D) are the parameters used to evaluate the standard of MCQs. The aim of the study was to assess quality of MCQs. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Pathology. One hundred and twenty, 2nd year MBBS students took the MCQs test comprising 40 questions. There was no negative marking and evaluation was done out of 40 marks, and 50% score was the passing mark. Postvalidation of the paper was done by item analysis. Each item was analyzed for difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor effectiveness. The relationship between them for each item was determined by Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS 20.0. Results: Difficulty index of 34 (85%) items was in the acceptable range (P = 30–70%), 2 (5%) item was too easy (P >70%), and 4 (10%) items were too difficult (P <30%). Discrimination index of 24 (60%) items was excellent (D >0.4), 4 (10%) items were good (D =0.3–0.39), 6 (15%) items were acceptable (D =0.2–0.29), and 6 (15%) items were poor (D < 0–0.19). A total 40 items had 120 distractors. Amongst these, 6 (5%) were nonfunctional distracters, 114 (95%) were functional distracters. The discrimination index exhibited positive correlation with difficulty index (r = 0.563, P = 0.010, significant at 0.01 level [two-tailed]). The maximum discrimination (D = 0.5–0.6) was observed in acceptable range (P = 30–70%). Conclusion: In this study, the majority of items fulfilled the criteria of acceptable difficulty and good discrimination. Moderately easy/difficult had the maximal discriminative ability. Very difficult item displayed poor discrimination, but the very easy item had high discrimination index, indicating a faulty item, or incorrect keys. The results of this study would initiate a change in the way MCQ test items are selected for any examination, and there should be proper assessment strategy as part of the curriculum development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/2395-2296.189670

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 mean difficulty index of the i-Rat was less than that obtained by Escudero et al., Rao et al., and Licona-Chávez et al. for a balanced exam of high-stake [5, 54, 55].

    “which is less than that obtained by Escudero et al., Rao et al., and Licona-Chávez et al. for a balanced exam of high-stake [5, 54, 55]”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 8 · Cited by 96

Authors
Rao, C., Kishan Prasad, H., Sajitha, K., Permi, H., & Shetty, J.
Affiliations
K S Hegde Medical Academy (IN)
Corresponding author
Rao, Chandrika
Venue
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches
Published
2016
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
201
ISSN
2395-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2488820634
Cited by
96
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches (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
item analysis, multiple-choice questions, item difficulty, item discrimination, distractor effectiveness, test item quality, medical students, pathology education, assessment tool validation

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