Introduction: MCQs in one of popular test item of educational institution in a short time, large part of curriculum. It is an effective tool for student assessment as well as providing guidelines to teachers. Objectives: Our study objectives were to analyze the quality of MCQs and identify the low scorers and student learning difficulties. Standardization of MCQs is required only after test item analysis. Material and Methods: The study design was cross sectional analytical study. Simple random sampling technique was applied. The total participants were 100 students of 1st year MBBS of Ghazi Khan Medical College, Dera Ghazi Khan. Fifty best MCQs were given in send up of Medical Physiology 2021. On basis of students total score in test, they were divides into two groups, high scorers (n=25) and low scorers (n=25). The difficulty index (P) and discrimination index, distracter efficiency (DE%) were calculated. Results: Our study 80% of test items have acceptable range of difficulty index and very high distracter efficiency. Only 20% of test item showed very poor difficulty index, which needs to be rephrased or deleted. The 20% test item had acceptable difficulty index (P=38), high D. I (0.36) and highest distracter efficiency (DE=100%). Conclusion: Test items with average difficulty index (P), excellent DI and all functional distracters should be given in subsequent tests.
| Published in | Biomedical Sciences (Volume 8, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16 |
| Page(s) | 37-40 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Test Item, Difficulty Index, Discriminative Index, Distracter Efficiency
| [1] | Ahila E, Velou MS, Refine the multiple choice questions tool with item analysis, 2021; 7: 80-85. |
| [2] | Hingorjo MR. Jaleel F, Analysis of one best MCQs: The difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. JPMA, 2012; 62: 142-7. |
| [3] | Juniati E, Subali B, Teacher’s opinion about learning continuum of genetic based on student’s level of competence AIP Conference Proceeding 1868, 100002; 2017, http://doi.org/10.1063/1,4995212. |
| [4] | Subali B, Kumaidi, Aminah NS, The comparison of item test characteristics viewed from classic and Modern Test Theory IJI 2021; 14: 647-660. |
| [5] | Singh T, Gupta P, Singh D, Test and item analysis. In: principles of Medical Education 3rd Ed. New Delhi Jaypee Brothers, 2009: 70-7. |
| [6] | Carneson J, Delpierre G, Masters K, Designing and Managing MCQs. Appendix C: MCQs and Bloom Taxonomy (online) 2021 (cited Jun 25) Available from URL. http://web.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/mcqman/mcqappc.html. |
| [7] | Collins J, Education Techniques for lifelong learning: Writing Multiple Choice Question for Continuing Medical Education activities and self assessment modules. Radiographic, 2006; 26: 543-51. |
| [8] | Dianne S, Linda C, Fritz D, Brian G Laura H, JoIda H, et al. The standards for Educational and Psychological testing: 2009. AERA Publication, Washington DC. |
| [9] | Si-Mui Sim, Rashia RI, Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in True/false type MCQs of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Accad Med Singapore. 2006; 35; 67-71. |
| [10] | Zubairi Am, & Kassim NLA, Classical and Research analysis of dichotomously scored reading comprehension test items. Malaysian JELTs Res 2006; 2: 1-20. |
| [11] | Miller MD, Linn Rl, Grown Fund NE, (Ed). Measurement and assessment in Teaching. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall: 2009. |
| [12] | Palmer EJ, Devitt PG, Assessment of Higher order cognitive skill in undergraduate education, Modified Assay or MCQs. BMC Medical Education. 2009; 7: 49. |
| [13] | Gujjar S, Sharma R Kumar P, Rana M. Item and test analysis to identify quality MCQs from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedabad, Gujrat. Indian J Comm. Med, 2014; 39: 17-20. |
| [14] | Tejindar S, Piyush G & Daljet. Principals of Medical Education. 3rd ed. 2009; 70-77. |
| [15] | Karelia BN, Pillai A, Vegada BN. The level of difficulty and discriminative indices and relationship between them in four response type MCQs of Pharmacology summative tests of 2nd year MBBS students. IeJSME, 2013; 6: 41-6. |
| [16] | Pande SS, Pande SR, Parate VR, Nikam AP, Agrekar SH. Correlation between difficulty and discriminative indices of MCQs in formative exam in physiology South East Asian J Med Edu. 2013; 7: 45-50. |
| [17] | MCI, Regulation on Graduate Medical education (Amendment), Board of Governors in the suppression of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi 2019: 1-99. |
| [18] | Jonathan A, Odukoya, Olajide A, Angie O, Igbinoba, Aflobi A, Item analysis of university-wide multiple choice objective examination: the experience of a Nigerian private university, Quall Quant, 2018; 52: 983-97. |
| [19] | Mitra NK, Nagaraja HS, Ponnudural G & Judson JP. The level of difficulty and discriminative indices in type-A MCQs of Pre-Clinical Semester-Multidisciplinary summative tests. IJSME, 2009; 3: 2-7. |
| [20] | Mehta G & Makhosi V. Item analysis of MCQs-An Assessment of the assessment tool. IJHSR. 20141; 4: 197-202. |
| [21] | Rao C, Kashan Prasad HL, Sajitha K, Shetty J, Item analysis of MCQs: Assessing an assessment tool in medical students, I J Edu Psychology Res 2016; 2: 201-4. |
| [22] | Rajkumar P, Sachin BP, Kamesh V, Abhijit Vinod B, Evaluation of Multiple Choice Questions by item analysis in a medical college at Pondicherry, India, I J Community Med Public Health 2016; 3: 1612-6. |
| [23] | Bhat Sk, Prasad KH, Item analysis and optimizing multiple choice questions for a variable question bank in Ophthalmology: A cross sectional study, I J Ophthalmology, 2021; 69: 343-6. |
APA Style
Abdul Rehman Khokhar, Qurrat-ul Ain Rehman, Mujahid Hussain. (2022). Test Item Analysis of MCQS of Medical Physiology: Summative Assessment. Biomedical Sciences, 8(1), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16
ACS Style
Abdul Rehman Khokhar; Qurrat-ul Ain Rehman; Mujahid Hussain. Test Item Analysis of MCQS of Medical Physiology: Summative Assessment. Biomed. Sci. 2022, 8(1), 37-40. doi: 10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16
AMA Style
Abdul Rehman Khokhar, Qurrat-ul Ain Rehman, Mujahid Hussain. Test Item Analysis of MCQS of Medical Physiology: Summative Assessment. Biomed Sci. 2022;8(1):37-40. doi: 10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16,
author = {Abdul Rehman Khokhar and Qurrat-ul Ain Rehman and Mujahid Hussain},
title = {Test Item Analysis of MCQS of Medical Physiology: Summative Assessment},
journal = {Biomedical Sciences},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
pages = {37-40},
doi = {10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bs.20220801.16},
abstract = {Introduction: MCQs in one of popular test item of educational institution in a short time, large part of curriculum. It is an effective tool for student assessment as well as providing guidelines to teachers. Objectives: Our study objectives were to analyze the quality of MCQs and identify the low scorers and student learning difficulties. Standardization of MCQs is required only after test item analysis. Material and Methods: The study design was cross sectional analytical study. Simple random sampling technique was applied. The total participants were 100 students of 1st year MBBS of Ghazi Khan Medical College, Dera Ghazi Khan. Fifty best MCQs were given in send up of Medical Physiology 2021. On basis of students total score in test, they were divides into two groups, high scorers (n=25) and low scorers (n=25). The difficulty index (P) and discrimination index, distracter efficiency (DE%) were calculated. Results: Our study 80% of test items have acceptable range of difficulty index and very high distracter efficiency. Only 20% of test item showed very poor difficulty index, which needs to be rephrased or deleted. The 20% test item had acceptable difficulty index (P=38), high D. I (0.36) and highest distracter efficiency (DE=100%). Conclusion: Test items with average difficulty index (P), excellent DI and all functional distracters should be given in subsequent tests.},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Test Item Analysis of MCQS of Medical Physiology: Summative Assessment AU - Abdul Rehman Khokhar AU - Qurrat-ul Ain Rehman AU - Mujahid Hussain Y1 - 2022/03/03 PY - 2022 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16 DO - 10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16 T2 - Biomedical Sciences JF - Biomedical Sciences JO - Biomedical Sciences SP - 37 EP - 40 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-3932 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bs.20220801.16 AB - Introduction: MCQs in one of popular test item of educational institution in a short time, large part of curriculum. It is an effective tool for student assessment as well as providing guidelines to teachers. Objectives: Our study objectives were to analyze the quality of MCQs and identify the low scorers and student learning difficulties. Standardization of MCQs is required only after test item analysis. Material and Methods: The study design was cross sectional analytical study. Simple random sampling technique was applied. The total participants were 100 students of 1st year MBBS of Ghazi Khan Medical College, Dera Ghazi Khan. Fifty best MCQs were given in send up of Medical Physiology 2021. On basis of students total score in test, they were divides into two groups, high scorers (n=25) and low scorers (n=25). The difficulty index (P) and discrimination index, distracter efficiency (DE%) were calculated. Results: Our study 80% of test items have acceptable range of difficulty index and very high distracter efficiency. Only 20% of test item showed very poor difficulty index, which needs to be rephrased or deleted. The 20% test item had acceptable difficulty index (P=38), high D. I (0.36) and highest distracter efficiency (DE=100%). Conclusion: Test items with average difficulty index (P), excellent DI and all functional distracters should be given in subsequent tests. VL - 8 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: