Cargando…

The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value

BACKGROUND: Failure to adhere to standard item-writing guidelines may render examination questions easier or more difficult than intended. Item complexity describes the cognitive skill level required to obtain a correct answer. Higher cognitive examination items promote critical thinking and are rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rush, Bonnie R., Rankin, David C., White, Brad J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27681933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3
_version_ 1782456406007349248
author Rush, Bonnie R.
Rankin, David C.
White, Brad J.
author_facet Rush, Bonnie R.
Rankin, David C.
White, Brad J.
author_sort Rush, Bonnie R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Failure to adhere to standard item-writing guidelines may render examination questions easier or more difficult than intended. Item complexity describes the cognitive skill level required to obtain a correct answer. Higher cognitive examination items promote critical thinking and are recommended to prepare students for clinical training. This study evaluated faculty-authored examinations to determine the impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on the difficulty and discrimination value of examination items used to assess third year veterinary students. METHODS: The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity (cognitive level I-V) on examination item difficulty and discrimination value was evaluated on 1925 examination items prepared by clinical faculty for third year veterinary students. RESULTS: The mean (± SE) percent correct (83.3 % ± 17.5) was consistent with target values in professional education, and the mean discrimination index (0.18 ± 0.17) was slightly lower than recommended (0.20). More than one item-writing flaw was identified in 37.3 % of questions. The most common item-writing flaws were awkward stem structure, implausible distractors, longest response is correct, and responses are series of true-false statements. Higher cognitive skills (complexity level III-IV) were required to correctly answer 38.4 % of examination items. As item complexity increased, item difficulty and discrimination values increased. The probability of writing discriminating, difficult examination items decreased when implausible distractors and all of the above were used, and increased if the distractors were comprised of a series of true/false statements. Items with four distractors were not more difficult or discriminating than items with three distractors. CONCLUSION: Preparation of examination questions targeting higher cognitive levels will increase the likelihood of constructing discriminating items. Use of implausible distractors to complete a five-option multiple choice question does not strengthen the discrimination value. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5041405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50414052016-10-05 The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value Rush, Bonnie R. Rankin, David C. White, Brad J. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Failure to adhere to standard item-writing guidelines may render examination questions easier or more difficult than intended. Item complexity describes the cognitive skill level required to obtain a correct answer. Higher cognitive examination items promote critical thinking and are recommended to prepare students for clinical training. This study evaluated faculty-authored examinations to determine the impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on the difficulty and discrimination value of examination items used to assess third year veterinary students. METHODS: The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity (cognitive level I-V) on examination item difficulty and discrimination value was evaluated on 1925 examination items prepared by clinical faculty for third year veterinary students. RESULTS: The mean (± SE) percent correct (83.3 % ± 17.5) was consistent with target values in professional education, and the mean discrimination index (0.18 ± 0.17) was slightly lower than recommended (0.20). More than one item-writing flaw was identified in 37.3 % of questions. The most common item-writing flaws were awkward stem structure, implausible distractors, longest response is correct, and responses are series of true-false statements. Higher cognitive skills (complexity level III-IV) were required to correctly answer 38.4 % of examination items. As item complexity increased, item difficulty and discrimination values increased. The probability of writing discriminating, difficult examination items decreased when implausible distractors and all of the above were used, and increased if the distractors were comprised of a series of true/false statements. Items with four distractors were not more difficult or discriminating than items with three distractors. CONCLUSION: Preparation of examination questions targeting higher cognitive levels will increase the likelihood of constructing discriminating items. Use of implausible distractors to complete a five-option multiple choice question does not strengthen the discrimination value. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5041405/ /pubmed/27681933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3 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
Rush, Bonnie R.
Rankin, David C.
White, Brad J.
The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title_full The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title_fullStr The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title_full_unstemmed The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title_short The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
title_sort impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27681933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3
work_keys_str_mv AT rushbonnier theimpactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue
AT rankindavidc theimpactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue
AT whitebradj theimpactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue
AT rushbonnier impactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue
AT rankindavidc impactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue
AT whitebradj impactofitemwritingflawsanditemcomplexityonexaminationitemdifficultyanddiscriminationvalue