Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?

Author:

Balaha Magdy H.12ORCID,El-Ibiary Mona T.2,El-Dorf Ayman A.2,El-Shewaikh Shereef L.2,Balaha Hossam M.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

3. Department of Computer Engineering and Systems, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Abstract

Abstract Background The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. Results Twenty three percent of the items (n = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% (n = 690) contained one violation, and 47% (n = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were “Options are Not in Order (61%).” The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. Conclusion There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Reference30 articles.

1. The multiple-choice test: writing the questions;J K Farley;Nurse Educ,1989

2. Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options;R Vyas;Natl Med J India,2008

3. The effect of selected poor item-writing practices on test difficulty, reliability and validity;B Cynthia;J Educ Meas,1972

4. Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: Do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference?;S M Downing;Acad Med,2002

5. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data;S M Downing;Med Educ,2003

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3