DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20190779

Development of multiple choice question bank in otorhinolaryngology by item analysis: a cross-sectional study

Ajeet Kumar Khilnani, Rekha Thaddanee, Gurudas Khilnani

Abstract


Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are routinely used for formative and summative assessment in medical education. Item analysis is a process of post validation of MCQ tests, whereby items are analyzed for difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency, to obtain a range of items of varying difficulty and discrimination indices. This study was done to understand the process of item analysis and analyze MCQ test so that a valid and reliable MCQ bank in otorhinolaryngology is developed.

Methods: 158 students of 7th Semester were given an 8 item MCQ test. Based on the marks achieved, the high achievers (top 33%, 52 students) and low achievers (bottom 33%, 52 students) were included in the study. The responses were tabulated in Microsoft Excel Sheet and analyzed for difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency.  

Results: The mean (SD) difficulty index (Diff-I) of 8 item test was 61.41% (11.81%). 5 items had a very good difficulty index (41% to 60%), while 3 items were easy (Diff-I >60%). There was no item with Diff-I <30%, i.e. a difficult item, in this test. The mean (SD) discrimination index (DI) of the test was 0.48 (0.15), and all items had very good discrimination indices of more than 0.25. Out of 24 distractors, 6 (25%) were non-functional distractors (NFDs). The mean (SD) distractor efficiency (DE) of the test was 74.62% (23.79%).

Conclusions: Item analysis should be an integral and regular activity in each department so that a valid and reliable MCQ question bank is developed.


Keywords


Difficulty index, Discrimination index, Distractor efficiency, Item analysis, Multiple choice question, Otorhinolaryngology, Reliability, Validity

Full Text:

PDF

References


Patil R, Palve SB, Vell K, Boratne AV. Evaluation of multiple choice questions by item analysis in a medical college at Pondicherry, India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2016;3:1612-6.

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 Community Med. 2014;39:17-20.

Mukherjee P, Lahiri SK. Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs): Item and Test Statistics from an assessment in a medical college of Kolkata, West Bengal. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2015;14:47-52.

Chavda P, Misra S, Duttaroy B. Item analysis of multiple choice questions based undergraduate assessment in Community Medicine. South East Asian J Med Edu. 2015;9:66-8.

Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F. Analysis of One-Best MCQs: the Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62:142-7.

Kashyap S. Item analysis of multiple choice questions. Int J Current Res. 2015;7:24057-8.

Rao C, Kishan Prasad HL, Sajitha K, Permi H, Shetty J. Item analysis of multiple choice questions: Assessing an assessment tool in medical students. Int J Educ Psychol Res. 2016;2:201-4.

Kheyami D, Jaradat A, Al-Shibani T, Ali FA. Item analysis of Multiple Choice Questions at th Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain. Sultan Qaboos University Med J. 2018;18:e68-74.

Ramakrishnan M, Sathe AB, Sabnis VA. Item analysis: A tool to increase MCQ validity. Indian J Basic Applied Med Res. 2017;6:184-9.

Singh T, Gupta P, Singh D. Principles of Medical Education. 3rd Ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2009: 70–77.

Khilnani AK, Charan J, Thaddanee R, Pathak RR, Makwana S, Khilnani G. Structured oral examination in pharmacology for undergraduate medical students: Factors influencing its implementation. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47:546-50.

Vegada B, Shukla A, Khilnani A, Charan J, Desai C. Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study. Indian J Pharmacol. 2016;48:571-5.