Predictability of Discrimination Coefficient and Difficulty Index of Psychiatry Multiple-Choice Questions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiva Soraya ◽  
Amir Shabani ◽  
Leila Kamalzadeh ◽  
Fatemeh Kashaninasab ◽  
Vahid Rashedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Psychiatry Department ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Discrimination Coefficient ◽  
Difficulty Index

Background:  Multiple-choice questions are among the most common written tests. This study aimed to evaluate the faculty members’ability to determine and predict the level of difficulty and discrimination coefficient of multiple-choice tests at Psychiatry Department. Methods: All faculty members at Psychiatry Department of Iran University of Medical Sciences participated in this study. The difficulty and discrimination coefficient of all questions (150 questions) of the mid-term exam of psychiatric residents were measured with both software program and formulas by hand. Then, from each group of questions with high, medium, and low difficulty coefficient, 10 questions (30 questions in total) were selected and provided to faculty members for ranking each question in terms of difficulty and discrimination coefficient. Finally, the correlation between faculty members’ evaluation and standard results was measured by the Spearman’s correlation. To calculate the discrimination coefficient, the number of people who answered a question correctly in the low-score group was subtracted from the high-score group and then the result was divided by the number of people in a group. Results: Twenty-five faculty members participated in this study. There was a significant negative correlation between difficulty level and discrimination coefficient in the whole group (r=-0.196, p=0.045), but this was not the case in the upper and lower groups (r=-0.063, p=0.733). In addition, the correlation between the discrimination coefficient obtained from the formula and the average discrimination coefficient of faculty members was not significant (r=-0.047, p=0.803). Conclusion: It seems that the ability of faculty members to predict the discrimination coefficient and difficulty level of questions is not sufficient.

scholarly journals Developing Computerized Adaptive Testing: An Experimental Research on Assessing the Mathematical Ability of 10 Graders (Vietnam K12 Education Program)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Thai Hung ◽  
Nguyen Thi Quynh Giang ◽  
Tang Thi Thuy ◽  
Tran Lan Anh ◽  
Nguyen Tien Dung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computerized Adaptive Testing ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Adaptive Testing ◽  
Mathematical Ability ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Mathematical Algorithms ◽  
Kolmogorov Smirnov ◽  
Initial Outcome

Computerized Adaptive Testing - CAT is a form of assessment test which requires fewer test questions to arrive at precise measurements of examinees' ability. One of the core technical components in building a CAT is mathematical algorithms which estimate examinee's ability and select the most appropriate test questions for those estimates. Those mathematical algorithms serve as a locomotive in operating the system of adaptive multiple-choice questions on computers.  Our research aims to develop essential mathematical algorithms to a computerised system of adaptive multiple-choice tests. We also build a question bank of 500 multiple-choice questions standardised by IRT theory with the difficulty level follows the normal distribution satisfying Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, to measure the mathematical ability of students in grade 10. The initial outcome of our experiment of the question bank shows: the question bank satisfies the requirements from a psychometric model and the constructed mathematical algorithms meets the criteria to apply in computerised adaptive testing.

scholarly journals Item analysis as tool to validate multiple choice question bank in pharmacology

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1999
Author(s):  
Amit P. Date ◽  
Archana S. Borkar ◽  
Rupesh T. Badwaik ◽  
Riaz A. Siddiqui ◽  
Tanaji R. Shende ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Item Analysis ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Discrimination Index ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Lower Ability ◽  
Difficulty Index

Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a common method for formative and summative assessment of medical students. Item analysis enables identifying good MCQs based on difficulty index (DIF I), discrimination index (DI), distracter efficiency (DE). The objective of this study was to assess the quality of MCQs currently in use in pharmacology by item analysis and develop a MCQ bank with quality items.Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 148 second year MBBS students at NKP Salve institute of medical sciences from January 2018 to August 2018. Forty MCQs twenty each from the two term examination of pharmacology were taken for item analysis A correct response to an item was awarded one mark and each incorrect response was awarded zero. Each item was analyzed using Microsoft excel sheet for three parameters such as DIF I, DI, and DE.Results: In present study mean and standard deviation (SD) for Difficulty index (%) Discrimination index (%) and Distractor efficiency (%) were 64.54±19.63, 0.26±0.16 and 66.54±34.59 respectively. Out of 40 items large number of MCQs has acceptable level of DIF (70%) and good in discriminating higher and lower ability students DI (77.5%). Distractor efficiency related to presence of zero or 1 non-functional distrator (NFD) is 80%.Conclusions: The study showed that item analysis is a valid tool to identify quality items which regularly incorporated can help to develop a very useful, valid and a reliable question bank.

scholarly journals Impact Measurement on Medical Faculty for Adhering to Appropriate Guidelines in Framing Effective Multiple-Choice Questions for Item Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Surajit Kundu ◽  
Jaideo M Ughade ◽  
Anil R Sherke ◽  
Yogita Kanwar ◽  
Samta Tiwari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Item Analysis ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Medical Faculty ◽  
Discrimination Index ◽  
Cognitive Domain ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Impact Measurement ◽  
Difficulty Index ◽  
The Impact

Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are the most frequently accepted tool for the evaluation of comprehension, knowledge, and application among medical students. In single best response MCQs (items), a high order of cognition of students can be assessed. It is essential to develop valid and reliable MCQs, as flawed items will interfere with the unbiased assessment. The present paper gives an attempt to discuss the art of framing well-structured items taking kind help from the provided references. This article puts forth a practice for committed medical educators to uplift the skill of forming quality MCQs by enhanced Faculty Development programs (FDPs). Objectives: The objective of the study is also to test the quality of MCQs by item analysis. Methods: In this study, 100 MCQs of set I or set II were distributed to 200 MBBS students of Late Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Govt. Medical College Raigarh (CG) for item analysis for quality MCQs. Set I and Set II were MCQs which were formed by 60 medical faculty before and after FDP, respectively. All MCQs had a single stem with three wrong and one correct answers. The data were entered in Microsoft excel 2016 software to analyze. The difficulty index (Dif I), discrimination index (DI), and distractor efficiency (DE) were the item analysis parameters used to evaluate the impact on adhering to the guidelines for framing MCQs. Results: The mean calculated difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor efficiency were 56.54%, 0.26, and 89.93%, respectively. Among 100 items, 14 items were of higher difficulty level (DIF I < 30%), 70 were of moderate category, and 16 items were of easy level (DIF I > 60%). A total of 10 items had very good DI (0.40), 32 had recommended values (0.30 - 0.39), and 25 were acceptable with changes (0.20 - 0.29). Of the 100 MCQs, there were 27 MCQs with DE of 66.66% and 11 MCQs with DE of 33.33%. Conclusions: In this study, higher cognitive-domain MCQs increased after training, recurrent-type MCQ decreased, and MCQ with item writing flaws reduced, therefore making our results much more statistically significant. We had nine MCQs that satisfied all the criteria of item analysis.

scholarly journals Item and distracter analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs) from a preliminary examination of undergraduate medical students

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 5351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durgesh Prasad Sahoo ◽  
Rakesh Singh
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Discrimination Index ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Undergraduate Medical Students ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
High Discrimination ◽  
Difficulty Index

Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) or Items forms an important part to assess students in different educational streams. It is an objective mode of assessment which requires both the validity and reliability depending on the characteristics of its items i.e. difficulty index, discrimination index and distracter efficiency. To evaluate MCQs or items and build a bank of high-quality test items by assessing with difficulty index, discrimination index and distracter efficiency and also to revise/store or remove errant items based on obtained results.Methods: A preliminary examination of Third MBBS Part-1 was conducted by Department of Community Medicine undertaken for 100 students. Two separate papers with total 30 MCQs or items and 90 distractors each in both papers were analyzed and compared. Descriptive as well as inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.Results: The findings show that most of the items were falling in acceptable range of difficulty level however some items were rejected due to poor discrimination index. Overall paper I was found to be more difficult and more discriminatory, but its distractor efficiency was slightly low as compared to paper II.Conclusions: The analysis helped us in selection of quality MCQs having high discrimination and average difficulty with three functional distractors. This should be incorporated into future evaluations to improve the test score and properly discriminate among the students.

scholarly journals Are Faculty Members of Paramedics Able to Designed Accurate Multiple Choice Questions?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 211
Author(s):  
Reza Pourmirza Kalhori ◽  
Mohammad Abbasi
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
T Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Average Percentage ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Discrimination Coefficient

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Multiple choice questions (MCQ) are one of the assessment instruments in medical sciences. The overall aim of this study was to perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of the multiple choice question MCQ provided by the professors of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences-Faculty of Medicine in the academic year 2011-2012.MATERIALS & METHODS: In this descriptive-analytic study, 37 tests of the Faculty of Medicine were analyzed. Quantitative data included difficulty coefficient, discrimination coefficient, whole credibility test, standard deviation of the questions, and the qualitative data consisted of taxonomic percent I, II and III, percentage of questions with no structural problems. The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 20.00 while T-test and chi-square test were applied.RESULTS: The average validity coefficient of the total tests (KR-20) was measured as 0.63, the average difficulty coefficient as 0.58, the average discrimination coefficient as 0.19. The average percentage of the questions without structural problems as 37.1%; all of which were in the acceptable range. The mean Taxonomy I percentage of the questions was38.36% (±11.31), Taxonomy II percentage of the questions was 42.46% (±15.51) with no significant difference in the entire tests. Average percentage of questions with taxonomy III was 20.73% (±12.83) for which independent t-test showed significant difference in the total tests (P=0.00). Average percentage of questions without structural problems was measured as 55.23% (±13.23) for which there was a significant difference in the total tests when independent t-test was used (P=0.041).CONCLUSION: Considering the average validity of the whole test, the mean difficulty coefficient and Taxonomy indexes I, II and III, the tests designed by the professors of the Faculty of Allied Science are within an a acceptable standard range.

CORRELATION OF DIFFICULTY INDEX AND DISCRIMINATING INDEX IN MEDICAL STUDENT’S ASSESSMENT.

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
Bhoomika R. Chauhan ◽  
Jayesh Vaza ◽  
Girish R. Chauhan ◽  
Pradip R. Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Formative Assessment ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Discriminating Power ◽  
Good Discriminator ◽  
Difficulty Index ◽  
The Relationship

Multiple choice questions are nowadays used in competitive examination and formative assessment to assess the student's eligibility and certification.Item analysis is the process of collecting,summarizing and using information from students' responses to assess the quality of test items.Goal of the study was to identify the relationship between the item difficulty index and item discriminating index in medical student's assessment. 400 final year medical students from various medical colleges responded 200 items constructed for the study.The responses were assessed and analysed for item difficulty index and item discriminating power. Item difficulty index an item discriminating power were analysed by statical methods to identify correlation.The discriminating power of the items with difficulty index in 40%-50% was the highest. Summary and Conclusion:Items with good difficulty index in range of 30%-70% are good discriminator.

scholarly journals Item analysis of multiple choice questions of undergraduate pharmacology examinations in a medical college in Belagavi, Karnataka, India

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 1917
Author(s):  
Netravathi B. Angadi ◽  
Amitha Nagabhushana ◽  
Nayana K. Hashilkar
Keyword(s):  
Simple Procedure ◽  
Item Analysis ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Test Construction ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Difficulty Index

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 Distractor efficiency (DE). Item analysis is a valuable yet relatively simple procedure, performed after the examination that provides information regarding the reliability and validity of a test item. The objective of this study was to perform an item analysis of MCQs for testing their validity parameters.Methods: 50 items consisting of 150 distractors were selected from the formative exams. A correct response to an item was awarded one mark with no negative marking for incorrect response. Each item was analysed for three parameters such as DIF I, DI, and DE.Results: A total of 50 items consisting of 150 Distractor s were analysed. DIF I of 31 (62%) items were in the acceptable range (DIF I= 30-70%) and 30 had ‘good to excellent’ (DI >0.25). 10 (20%) items were too easy and 9 (18%) items were too difficult (DIF I <30%). There were 4 items with 6 non-functional Distractor s (NFDs), while the rest 46 items did not have any NFDs.Conclusions: Item analysis is a valuable tool as it helps us to retain the valuable MCQs and discard or modify 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.

Experience Versus Potential of Multiple-Choice Tests in Marketing Courses

1979 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. McMillan
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Test Form ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Choice Tests ◽  
Classroom Evaluation ◽  
Quality Objective ◽  
Multiple Choice Items

Most educators agree that classroom evaluation practices need improvement. One way to improve testing is to use high-quality objective multiple-choice exams. Almost any understanding or ability which can be tested by another test form can also be tested by means of multiple-choice items. Based on a survey of 173 respondents, it appears that marketing teachers are disenchanted with multiple-choice questions and use them sparingly. Further, their limited use is largely in the introductory marketing course even though there are emerging pressures for universities to take a closer look at the quality of classroom evaluation at all levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document