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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |