Cargando…

Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?

Background  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balaha, Magdy H., El-Ibiary, Mona T., El-Dorf, Ayman A., El-Shewaikh, Shereef L., Balaha, Hossam M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2022
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755332
_version_ 1784786275216130048
author Balaha, Magdy H.
El-Ibiary, Mona T.
El-Dorf, Ayman A.
El-Shewaikh, Shereef L.
Balaha, Hossam M.
author_facet Balaha, Magdy H.
El-Ibiary, Mona T.
El-Dorf, Ayman A.
El-Shewaikh, Shereef L.
Balaha, Hossam M.
author_sort Balaha, Magdy H.
collection PubMed
description Background  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. Methods  This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. Results  Twenty three percent of the items ( n  = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% ( n  = 690) contained one violation, and 47% ( n  = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were “Options are Not in Order (61%).” The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. Conclusion  There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9458348
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94583482022-09-09 Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation? Balaha, Magdy H. El-Ibiary, Mona T. El-Dorf, Ayman A. El-Shewaikh, Shereef L. Balaha, Hossam M. Avicenna J Med Background  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. Methods  This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. Results  Twenty three percent of the items ( n  = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% ( n  = 690) contained one violation, and 47% ( n  = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were “Options are Not in Order (61%).” The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. Conclusion  There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed. Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2022-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9458348/ /pubmed/36092385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755332 Text en Syrian American Medical Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Balaha, Magdy H.
El-Ibiary, Mona T.
El-Dorf, Ayman A.
El-Shewaikh, Shereef L.
Balaha, Hossam M.
Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title_full Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title_fullStr Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title_full_unstemmed Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title_short Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
title_sort construction and writing flaws of the multiple-choice questions in the published test banks of obstetrics and gynecology: adoption, caution, or mitigation?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755332
work_keys_str_mv AT balahamagdyh constructionandwritingflawsofthemultiplechoicequestionsinthepublishedtestbanksofobstetricsandgynecologyadoptioncautionormitigation
AT elibiarymonat constructionandwritingflawsofthemultiplechoicequestionsinthepublishedtestbanksofobstetricsandgynecologyadoptioncautionormitigation
AT eldorfaymana constructionandwritingflawsofthemultiplechoicequestionsinthepublishedtestbanksofobstetricsandgynecologyadoptioncautionormitigation
AT elshewaikhshereefl constructionandwritingflawsofthemultiplechoicequestionsinthepublishedtestbanksofobstetricsandgynecologyadoptioncautionormitigation
AT balahahossamm constructionandwritingflawsofthemultiplechoicequestionsinthepublishedtestbanksofobstetricsandgynecologyadoptioncautionormitigation