Item analysis of multiple choice questions of undergraduate pharmacology examinations in a medical college in Belagavi, Karnataka, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20183923Keywords:
Difficulty index, Discrimination index, Distractor efficiency, Multiple choice questions, Non-functional distractorAbstract
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.
References
Rege NN, Validation of MCQs. In: Bhuiyan PS, Rege NN, Supe AN. Eds. The art of teaching medical students. 2nd Ed. Medical Education Technology cell, Seth GSMC and KEM hospital. 2002;239-251.
Ramakrishnan M, Sathe AB, Vinayak A. Item analysis: a tool to increase MCQ validity. Indian J Basic Applied Med Res. 2017;6(3):67-71.
Thompson B, Levitov JE. Using microcomputers to score and evaluate items. Collegiate Microcomputer. 1985;3(2):163-8.
Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F. Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. J Pakistan Med Asso. 2012 Feb 1;62(2):142.
Tarrant M, Ware J, Mohammed AM. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Edu. 2009 Dec;9(1):40.
Rasiah SM, Isaiah R. Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2006 Aug 1;35(2):67-71.
Gajjar S, Sharma R, Kumar P, Rana M. Item and test analysis to identify quality multiple choice questions (MCQs) from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Indian J Comm Med. 2014 Jan;39(1):17.
Tarrant M, Ware J, Mohammed AM. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Edu. 2009 Dec;9(1):40.
Karkal YR, Kundapur GS. Item analysis of multiple choice questions of undergraduate pharmacology examinations in an International Medical School in India. J Dr. NTR Uni Health Sci. 2016 Jul 1;5(3):183.
Halikar S, Godbole V, Chaudhari S. Item analysis to assess quality of MCQs. Med Sci. 2016;6:123-5.
Nair MK, Dawnji SR. Quality of multiple choice questions in undergraduate pharmacology assessments in a teaching hospital of Kerala, India: an item analysis. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2017;6:1265-8.
Rodriguez MC. Three options are optimal for multiple‐choice items: a meta‐analysis of 80 years of research. Edu Measurement: Issues Practice. 2005 Jun;24(2):3-13.
