Cargando…

Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey

BACKGROUND: Many medical exams use 5 options for multiple choice questions (MCQs), although the literature suggests that 3 options are optimal. Previous studies on this topic have often been based on non-medical examinations, so we sought to analyse rarely selected, 'non-functional' distra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rogausch, Anja, Hofer, Rainer, Krebs, René
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21106066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-85
_version_ 1782194056531542016
author Rogausch, Anja
Hofer, Rainer
Krebs, René
author_facet Rogausch, Anja
Hofer, Rainer
Krebs, René
author_sort Rogausch, Anja
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many medical exams use 5 options for multiple choice questions (MCQs), although the literature suggests that 3 options are optimal. Previous studies on this topic have often been based on non-medical examinations, so we sought to analyse rarely selected, 'non-functional' distractors (NF-D) in high stakes medical examinations, and their detection by item authors as well as psychometric changes resulting from a reduction in the number of options. METHODS: Based on Swiss Federal MCQ examinations from 2005-2007, the frequency of NF-D (selected by <1% or <5% of the candidates) was calculated. Distractors that were chosen the least or second least were identified and candidates who chose them were allocated to the remaining options using two extreme assumptions about their hypothetical behaviour: In case rarely selected distractors were eliminated, candidates could randomly choose another option - or purposively choose the correct answer, from which they had originally been distracted. In a second step, 37 experts were asked to mark the least plausible options. The consequences of a reduction from 4 to 3 or 2 distractors - based on item statistics or on the experts' ratings - with respect to difficulty, discrimination and reliability were modelled. RESULTS: About 70% of the 5-option-items had at least 1 NF-D selected by <1% of the candidates (97% for NF-Ds selected by <5%). Only a reduction to 2 distractors and assuming that candidates would switch to the correct answer in the absence of a 'non-functional' distractor led to relevant differences in reliability and difficulty (and to a lesser degree discrimination). The experts' ratings resulted in slightly greater changes compared to the statistical approach. CONCLUSIONS: Based on item statistics and/or an expert panel's recommendation, the choice of a varying number of 3-4 (or partly 2) plausible distractors could be performed without marked deteriorations in psychometric characteristics.
format Text
id pubmed-3004925
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30049252010-12-21 Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey Rogausch, Anja Hofer, Rainer Krebs, René BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Many medical exams use 5 options for multiple choice questions (MCQs), although the literature suggests that 3 options are optimal. Previous studies on this topic have often been based on non-medical examinations, so we sought to analyse rarely selected, 'non-functional' distractors (NF-D) in high stakes medical examinations, and their detection by item authors as well as psychometric changes resulting from a reduction in the number of options. METHODS: Based on Swiss Federal MCQ examinations from 2005-2007, the frequency of NF-D (selected by <1% or <5% of the candidates) was calculated. Distractors that were chosen the least or second least were identified and candidates who chose them were allocated to the remaining options using two extreme assumptions about their hypothetical behaviour: In case rarely selected distractors were eliminated, candidates could randomly choose another option - or purposively choose the correct answer, from which they had originally been distracted. In a second step, 37 experts were asked to mark the least plausible options. The consequences of a reduction from 4 to 3 or 2 distractors - based on item statistics or on the experts' ratings - with respect to difficulty, discrimination and reliability were modelled. RESULTS: About 70% of the 5-option-items had at least 1 NF-D selected by <1% of the candidates (97% for NF-Ds selected by <5%). Only a reduction to 2 distractors and assuming that candidates would switch to the correct answer in the absence of a 'non-functional' distractor led to relevant differences in reliability and difficulty (and to a lesser degree discrimination). The experts' ratings resulted in slightly greater changes compared to the statistical approach. CONCLUSIONS: Based on item statistics and/or an expert panel's recommendation, the choice of a varying number of 3-4 (or partly 2) plausible distractors could be performed without marked deteriorations in psychometric characteristics. BioMed Central 2010-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3004925/ /pubmed/21106066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-85 Text en Copyright ©2010 Rogausch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rogausch, Anja
Hofer, Rainer
Krebs, René
Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title_full Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title_fullStr Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title_full_unstemmed Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title_short Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
title_sort rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21106066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-85
work_keys_str_mv AT rogauschanja rarelyselecteddistractorsinhighstakesmedicalmultiplechoiceexaminationsandtheirrecognitionbyitemauthorsasimulationandsurvey
AT hoferrainer rarelyselecteddistractorsinhighstakesmedicalmultiplechoiceexaminationsandtheirrecognitionbyitemauthorsasimulationandsurvey
AT krebsrene rarelyselecteddistractorsinhighstakesmedicalmultiplechoiceexaminationsandtheirrecognitionbyitemauthorsasimulationandsurvey