Cargando…

An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND: Four- or five-option multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the standard in health-science disciplines, both on certification-level examinations and on in-house developed tests. Previous research has shown, however, that few MCQs have three or four functioning distractors. The purpose of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tarrant, Marie, Ware, James, Mohammed, Ahmed M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-40
_version_ 1782169560483364864
author Tarrant, Marie
Ware, James
Mohammed, Ahmed M
author_facet Tarrant, Marie
Ware, James
Mohammed, Ahmed M
author_sort Tarrant, Marie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Four- or five-option multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the standard in health-science disciplines, both on certification-level examinations and on in-house developed tests. Previous research has shown, however, that few MCQs have three or four functioning distractors. The purpose of this study was to investigate non-functioning distractors in teacher-developed tests in one nursing program in an English-language university in Hong Kong. METHODS: Using item-analysis data, we assessed the proportion of non-functioning distractors on a sample of seven test papers administered to undergraduate nursing students. A total of 514 items were reviewed, including 2056 options (1542 distractors and 514 correct responses). Non-functioning options were defined as ones that were chosen by fewer than 5% of examinees and those with a positive option discrimination statistic. RESULTS: The proportion of items containing 0, 1, 2, and 3 functioning distractors was 12.3%, 34.8%, 39.1%, and 13.8% respectively. Overall, items contained an average of 1.54 (SD = 0.88) functioning distractors. Only 52.2% (n = 805) of all distractors were functioning effectively and 10.2% (n = 158) had a choice frequency of 0. Items with more functioning distractors were more difficult and more discriminating. CONCLUSION: The low frequency of items with three functioning distractors in the four-option items in this study suggests that teachers have difficulty developing plausible distractors for most MCQs. Test items should consist of as many options as is feasible given the item content and the number of plausible distractors; in most cases this would be three. Item analysis results can be used to identify and remove non-functioning distractors from MCQs that have been used in previous tests.
format Text
id pubmed-2713226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27132262009-07-21 An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis Tarrant, Marie Ware, James Mohammed, Ahmed M BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Four- or five-option multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the standard in health-science disciplines, both on certification-level examinations and on in-house developed tests. Previous research has shown, however, that few MCQs have three or four functioning distractors. The purpose of this study was to investigate non-functioning distractors in teacher-developed tests in one nursing program in an English-language university in Hong Kong. METHODS: Using item-analysis data, we assessed the proportion of non-functioning distractors on a sample of seven test papers administered to undergraduate nursing students. A total of 514 items were reviewed, including 2056 options (1542 distractors and 514 correct responses). Non-functioning options were defined as ones that were chosen by fewer than 5% of examinees and those with a positive option discrimination statistic. RESULTS: The proportion of items containing 0, 1, 2, and 3 functioning distractors was 12.3%, 34.8%, 39.1%, and 13.8% respectively. Overall, items contained an average of 1.54 (SD = 0.88) functioning distractors. Only 52.2% (n = 805) of all distractors were functioning effectively and 10.2% (n = 158) had a choice frequency of 0. Items with more functioning distractors were more difficult and more discriminating. CONCLUSION: The low frequency of items with three functioning distractors in the four-option items in this study suggests that teachers have difficulty developing plausible distractors for most MCQs. Test items should consist of as many options as is feasible given the item content and the number of plausible distractors; in most cases this would be three. Item analysis results can be used to identify and remove non-functioning distractors from MCQs that have been used in previous tests. BioMed Central 2009-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2713226/ /pubmed/19580681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-40 Text en Copyright © 2009 Tarrant et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tarrant, Marie
Ware, James
Mohammed, Ahmed M
An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title_full An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title_fullStr An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title_full_unstemmed An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title_short An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
title_sort assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-40
work_keys_str_mv AT tarrantmarie anassessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis
AT warejames anassessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis
AT mohammedahmedm anassessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis
AT tarrantmarie assessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis
AT warejames assessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis
AT mohammedahmedm assessmentoffunctioningandnonfunctioningdistractorsinmultiplechoicequestionsadescriptiveanalysis