Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2015; 05(04): 058-061
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1703936
Original Article

Role of item analysis in post validation of multiple choice questions in formative assessment of medical students

Sajitha K.
1   Assistant Professors, Department of Pathology, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
,
Harish S. Permi
2   Associate Professors, Department of Pathology, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
,
Chandrika Rao
3   Assistant Professors, Department of Pathology, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
,
Kishan Prasad H. L.
4   Associate Professors, Department of Pathology, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:Multiple choice questions (MCQ) are used in the assessment of students in various fields. By this method of assessment it is possible to cover a wide range of topics in less amount of time. However the reliability of the test depends on the quality of the MCQ. The MCQ can be evaluated based on the Difficulty Index (DIFI), Discriminatory Index (Dl) and Distracter Efficiency (DE).

Objectives:To evaluate the MCQs based on the Difficulty Index (DIFI), Discriminatory Index (Dl) & Distracter Efficiency (DE) and develop a valid pool of questions.

Also to assess learner performance and discriminate between students of higher and lower abilities.

Materials and Methods:A total of 120 students were assessed based on multiple choice questions in pathology. The number of items were 20 and the number of distracters were 60. Data was entered and analyzed in MS Excel 2007 and simple proportions, mean and standard deviations were calculated.

Results:Mean and standard deviations for DIFI, Dl and DE were 57.8 ± 17.4%, 0.27 ± 0.17 and 84.98 ± 20.2 % respectively. Out of the 20 items, 11 items had good level of DIFI (31 - 60%), eight (8) items were considered easy (DIFI >61%) and one (1) item was considered difficult (DIFI < 30). Mean Dl in present study was 0.27 ± 0.17. Analysis of the Dl showed good discrimination power in eighteen (18) of the items. Out of the 60 distracters, nine (9) were non -functional distracters (NFD) and were seen in eight items. Out of these, seven items had one NFD each and one item had two NFD.

Conclusions:The study emphasizes on the importance of use of item analysis in construction of good quality MCQs and also in the evaluation of learner performance.

Keywords

Item - Discrimination Index - Difficulty Index - Distracter


Publication History

Article published online:
22 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Frank J R, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, de Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward Competency Based Education in Medicine: A systematic Review of Published Definitions. Med Teacher 2010; 32:631-7.
  • 2 Pande S S, Pande S R, Parate V R, Nikam A P, Agrekar S H. Correlation between difficulty & discrimination indices of MCQs in formative exam in Physiology. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education 2013;7(l):45-50.
  • 3 Gajjar S, Sharma P, Kumar P, Rana M. Item and Test Analysis to Identify duality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from an Assessment of Medical Students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Indian J Community Med 2014; 39(1): 17-20.
  • 4 Kelley TL. The selection of upper and lower groups for validation of test items. J Educ Psychol 1939; 30:17-24.
  • 5 Brown FG. Principles of educational and psychological testing. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983.
  • 6 Mitra N K, Nagaraja H S, Ponnudurai G, Judson J P. The level of Difficulty and Discrimination Indices In Type A Multiple Choice Questions Of Pre—clinical Semester I Multidiciplinary Summative Tests. leJSME 2009;3(l):2-7.
  • 7 Senanayake MP, Mettananda DSG. Standards medical students set for themselves when preparing for the final MBBS examination. Annals Acad Med 2005; 34: 483-85.
  • 8 Marso RN, Pigge FL. An analysis of teacher made tests and item construction errors. J Contemp Edu Psych 1991; 16: 279-86.
  • 9 Ho T.F, Yip W.C.L, Tay J.S.H. The use of multiple choice questions in medical examination: An evaluation of scoring and analysis of results. Singapore Medical Journal 1981; 22(6):361-67.
  • 10 Talebi GA, Ghaffari R, Eskandarzadeh E, Oskouei A E. Item Analysis an Effective Tool for Assessing Exam Quality, Designing of Appropriate Exam and Determining Weakness in Teaching. Res Dev Med Educ 2013; 2(2): 20-23.