Cargando…

Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?

BACKGROUND: The psychometric characteristics of multiple-choice questions (MCQ) changed when taking into account their anatomical sites and the presence of item-writing flaws (IWF). The aim is to understand the impact of the anatomical sites and the presence of IWF in the psychometric qualities of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pais, João, Silva, Artur, Guimarães, Bruno, Povo, Ana, Coelho, Elisabete, Silva-Pereira, Fernanda, Lourinho, Isabel, Ferreira, Maria Amélia, Severo, Milton
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27516160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2202-4
_version_ 1782447695158312960
author Pais, João
Silva, Artur
Guimarães, Bruno
Povo, Ana
Coelho, Elisabete
Silva-Pereira, Fernanda
Lourinho, Isabel
Ferreira, Maria Amélia
Severo, Milton
author_facet Pais, João
Silva, Artur
Guimarães, Bruno
Povo, Ana
Coelho, Elisabete
Silva-Pereira, Fernanda
Lourinho, Isabel
Ferreira, Maria Amélia
Severo, Milton
author_sort Pais, João
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The psychometric characteristics of multiple-choice questions (MCQ) changed when taking into account their anatomical sites and the presence of item-writing flaws (IWF). The aim is to understand the impact of the anatomical sites and the presence of IWF in the psychometric qualities of the MCQ. RESULTS: 800 Clinical Anatomy MCQ from eight examinations were classified as standard or flawed items and according to one of the eight anatomical sites. An item was classified as flawed if it violated at least one of the principles of item writing. The difficulty and discrimination indices of each item were obtained. 55.8 % of the MCQ were flawed items. The anatomical site of the items explained 6.2 and 3.2 % of the difficulty and discrimination parameters and the IWF explained 2.8 and 0.8 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the IWF was heterogeneous, the Writing the Stem and Writing the Choices categories had a negative impact (higher difficulty and lower discrimination) while the other categories did not have any impact. The anatomical site effect was higher than IWF effect in the psychometric characteristics of the examination. When constructing MCQ, the focus should be in the topic/area of the items and only after in the presence of IWF. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2202-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4982015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49820152016-08-13 Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality? Pais, João Silva, Artur Guimarães, Bruno Povo, Ana Coelho, Elisabete Silva-Pereira, Fernanda Lourinho, Isabel Ferreira, Maria Amélia Severo, Milton BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: The psychometric characteristics of multiple-choice questions (MCQ) changed when taking into account their anatomical sites and the presence of item-writing flaws (IWF). The aim is to understand the impact of the anatomical sites and the presence of IWF in the psychometric qualities of the MCQ. RESULTS: 800 Clinical Anatomy MCQ from eight examinations were classified as standard or flawed items and according to one of the eight anatomical sites. An item was classified as flawed if it violated at least one of the principles of item writing. The difficulty and discrimination indices of each item were obtained. 55.8 % of the MCQ were flawed items. The anatomical site of the items explained 6.2 and 3.2 % of the difficulty and discrimination parameters and the IWF explained 2.8 and 0.8 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the IWF was heterogeneous, the Writing the Stem and Writing the Choices categories had a negative impact (higher difficulty and lower discrimination) while the other categories did not have any impact. The anatomical site effect was higher than IWF effect in the psychometric characteristics of the examination. When constructing MCQ, the focus should be in the topic/area of the items and only after in the presence of IWF. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2202-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4982015/ /pubmed/27516160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2202-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is 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, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pais, João
Silva, Artur
Guimarães, Bruno
Povo, Ana
Coelho, Elisabete
Silva-Pereira, Fernanda
Lourinho, Isabel
Ferreira, Maria Amélia
Severo, Milton
Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title_full Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title_fullStr Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title_full_unstemmed Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title_short Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
title_sort do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27516160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2202-4
work_keys_str_mv AT paisjoao doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT silvaartur doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT guimaraesbruno doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT povoana doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT coelhoelisabete doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT silvapereirafernanda doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT lourinhoisabel doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT ferreiramariaamelia doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality
AT severomilton doitemwritingflawsreduceexaminationspsychometricquality