Cargando…
Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options
BACKGROUND: There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates to two o...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6744622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31521151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-x |
_version_ | 1783451408424501248 |
---|---|
author | Tweed, Mike |
author_facet | Tweed, Mike |
author_sort | Tweed, Mike |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates to two or three distractors respectively. MAINTEXT: Whilst these arguments may be true when focusing on psychometric aspects of questions, we should also focus on educational and clinical authenticity aspects of questions. I present reasons for MCQs in tests to have a variable number of options which will usually be more than three, four, or five. These include: decisions related to broad clinical scenarios cannot be limited to a small number of options; options lists should include all possible combinations of option elements; and options that are rarely chosen can provide information regarding students and/or for students. CONCLUSION: Finally, given computer based delivery, longer option lists are not impractical for examinees. In the contexts that are appropriate, it is time to consider a move to adopting appropriate and variable numbers of MCQ options and not be limited to MCQs with three, four or five options. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6744622 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67446222019-09-18 Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options Tweed, Mike BMC Med Educ Debate BACKGROUND: There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates to two or three distractors respectively. MAINTEXT: Whilst these arguments may be true when focusing on psychometric aspects of questions, we should also focus on educational and clinical authenticity aspects of questions. I present reasons for MCQs in tests to have a variable number of options which will usually be more than three, four, or five. These include: decisions related to broad clinical scenarios cannot be limited to a small number of options; options lists should include all possible combinations of option elements; and options that are rarely chosen can provide information regarding students and/or for students. CONCLUSION: Finally, given computer based delivery, longer option lists are not impractical for examinees. In the contexts that are appropriate, it is time to consider a move to adopting appropriate and variable numbers of MCQ options and not be limited to MCQs with three, four or five options. BioMed Central 2019-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6744622/ /pubmed/31521151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 | Debate Tweed, Mike Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title_full | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title_fullStr | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title_full_unstemmed | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title_short | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
title_sort | adding to the debate on the numbers of options for mcqs: the case for not being limited to mcqs with three, four or five options |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6744622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31521151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tweedmike addingtothedebateonthenumbersofoptionsformcqsthecasefornotbeinglimitedtomcqswiththreefourorfiveoptions |