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

Amit P. Date; Archana S. Borkar; Rupesh T. Badwaik; Riaz A. Siddiqui; Tanaji R. Shende; Amruta V. Dashputra

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20194106

Authors

Amit P. Date Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Archana S. Borkar Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Rupesh T. Badwaik Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Riaz A. Siddiqui Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Tanaji R. Shende Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
Amruta V. Dashputra Department of Pharmacology, NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20194106

Keywords:

Difficulty index, Discrimination index, Distractor efficiency, Item analysis

Abstract

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.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

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.

Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences, National Board of Medical Examiners 3rd ed. 2010. Available at: http://www.nbme.org/publications/item-writing-manual.html. Accessed on 3 June 2019.

Tan LT, McAleer JJ. Final FRCR Examination Board. The introduction of single best answer questions as a test of knowledge in the final examination for fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists in Clinical Oncology. Clin Oncol. 2008;20:571-6.

Carneson J, Delpierre G, Masters K. Designing and managing MCQs: Appendix C: MCQs and Bloom's taxonomy.(Online)2011(Cited2018Sep2). Available at http://web.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/mcqman/ mcqappc.html. Accessed on 3 June 2019.

Collins J. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self assessment modules. Radiographics. 2006;26:543-51.

Considine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005;12:19-24.

Office of Educational Assessment. Understanding Item, 2017. Available at: http:// www.washington.edu /assessment/scanning-scoring/scoring/reports/item-analysis/. Accessed on 3 June 2019.

Carneson J, Delpierre G, Masters K. Designing and Managing Multiple Choice Questions,2016. Available at: http://web.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/mcqm an/mcqman01.html. Accessed on 3 June 2019.

Case SM, Swanson DB. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Director. 2002;27(21):112.

Sidine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, Validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005;12:19-24.

Angadi NB, Nagabhushana A, Hashilkar NK. Item analysis of multiple choice questions of undergraduate pharmacology examinations in a medical college in Belagavi, Karnataka, India.Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2018;7(10):1917-20.

Karelia BN, Pillai, Vegada BN. The levels of difficulty and discrimination indices and relationship between them in four response type multiple choice questions of pharmacology summative tests of II MBBS students. IJSME. 2013;6:41-6.

Suryadevra VK, Bano Z. Item analysis to identify quality multiple choice questions /items in assessment in pharmacology of II MBBS students in Guntur medical college of Andhra Pradesh India. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2018;7(8):1517-20.

Kolte V. Item analysis of Multiple choice questions in Physiology examination. Int J Basic Applied Medical Res. 2015;4:320-6.

Patil VC, Patil HV. Item analysis of medicine multiple choice questions (MCQs) for undergraduate (3rd year MBBS) students Res J Phar Biol Chem Sci. 2015;6:1242-51.

Mehta G, Mokashi V. Item analysis of multiple choice questions –An assessment of the assessment tool. Int J Health Sci Res. 2014;4:197-202.

Haladyna TM, Dowing SM. Validity of taxonomy of multiple choice item-writing rules. Applmeaseduc. 1989;2:51-78.

Tarrant M, Ware J, Mohammed AM. An assessment of functioning and nonfunctioning distracters in multiple choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Education. 2009;9:1-8.

Dufresne RJ, Jeonard WJ, Gerace WJ. Making sense of students answers to multiple choice Questions. Phys Teach. 2002;40:174-80.