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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Tweed, Mike
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