Cited by 122Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Levels Of Difficulty And Discrimination Indices In Type A Multiple Choice Questions Of Pre-clinical Semester 1 Multidisciplinary Summative Tests

Open access
N K, Mitra·2009·International e-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education

Abstract

Item analysis is the process of collecting, summarizing and using information from students' responses to assess the quality of test items.Difficulty index (P) and Discrimination index (D) are two parameters which help evaluate the standard of MCQ questions used in an examination, with abnormal values indicating poor quality.In this study, 120 test items of 12 Type A MCQ tests of Foundation 1 multi-disciplinary summative assessment from M2 / 2003 to M2 / 2006 cohorts of International Medical University were selected and their P-scores in percent and D-scores were estimated using Microsoft Office Excel.The relationship between the item difficulty index and discrimination index for each test item was determined by Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS 11.5.Mean difficulty index scores of the individual summative tests were in the range of 64% to 89%.One-third of total test items crossed the difficulty index of 80% indicating that those items were easy for the students.Sixty seven percent of the test items showed acceptable (> 0.2) discrimination index.Forty five out of 120 test items showed excellent discrimination index.Discrimination index correlated poorly with difficulty index (r = -0.325).In conclusion, a consistent level of test difficulty and discrimination indices was maintained from 2003 to 2006 in all the twelve summative type A MCQ tests.

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 · 10.56026/imu.3.1.2

Cites

23 of 23 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: 6

  1. Cunnigham S. Can pediatric medical students devise a standard for their colleagues? Arch Dis Child 1999; 80: 573-575.
  2. Zubairi AM, Kassim NLA. Classical and Rasch analysis of dichotomously scored reading comprehension test items. Malaysian J of ELT Res 2006; 2: 1-20.
  3. Lin LC, Tseng HM, Shiao-Chi WU. Item analysis of the registered nurse licensure exam taken by nursing candidates from vocational nursing high school in Taiwan. Proc Natl Sci Counc 1999; 9: 24-31.
  4. Original Article -Mitra N K, Nagaraja H S, Ponnudurai G, Judson J P IeJSME 2009: 3 (1): 2-7
  5. Marso RN, Pigge FL. An analysis of teacher made tests and item construction errors. J Contemp Edu Psych 1991; 16: 279-286.
  6. Original Article -Mitra N K, Nagaraja H S, Ponnudurai G, Judson J P IeJSME 2009: 3 (1): 2-7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
N K, M.
Venue
International e-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education
Published
2009
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
2-7
ISSN
2231-8194 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2183096291
Cited by
122
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International e-Journal of Science Medicine & Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
International Medical University
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 difficulty index, item discrimination index, item analysis, summative assessment, preclinical education, test item quality, medical students

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