Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality Cover

The Impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality

Open Access
|Sep 2015

References

  1. Mehrens WA Lehmann IJ Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology 1991 Fort Worth Holt, Rinehart and Winston
  2. Masters JC Hulsmeyer BS Pike ME Leichty K Miller MT Verst AL Assessment of multiple-choice questions in selected test banks accompanying textbooks used in nursing education J Nurs Educ 2001 40 1 25 32
  3. Jozefowicz RF Koeppen BM Case S Galbraith R Swanson D Glew H The quality of in-house medical school examinations Acad Med 2002 77 156 61 10.1097/00001888-200202000-00016
  4. Case SM Swanson DB Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences 2011 Philadelphia National Board of Medical Examiners
  5. Downing SM The effects of violating standard item-writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2005 10 133 43 10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5
  6. Tarrant M Ware J Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments Med Educ 2008 42 198 206 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x
  7. Haladyna TM Downing SM Rodriguez MC A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment Appl Meas Educ 2002 15 3 309 34 10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
  8. Tarrant M, Knierim A, Hayes SK, Ware J. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurs Educ Today. 26(8):662–71.
  9. Newble D A comparison of multiple-choice and free-response tests in examination of clinical competence Med Educ 1979 13 263 8 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1979.tb01511.x
  10. Maguire T Shakun E Harley C Setting standards for multiple-choice items in clinical reasoning Eval Health Prof 1992 15 434 52 10.1177/016327879201500406
  11. Elstein A. Beyond multiple-choice questions and essays: the need for a new way to assess clinical competence Acad Med 1993 68 244 9 10.1097/00001888-199304000-00002
  12. Boshuizen H van der Vleuten C Schmidt H Machiels-Bongaerts M Measuring knowledge and clinical reasoning skills in a problem-based curriculum Med Educ 1997 31 115 21 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1997.tb02469.x
  13. Shakun E Maguire T Cook D Strategy choices in multiple- choice items Acad Med 1994 69 10 S7 9 10.1097/00001888-199410000-00025
  14. Downing SM Haladyna TM Validity threats: overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data Med Educ 2004 38 327 33 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01777.x
  15. Rodriguez MC Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: a meta analysis of 80 years of research Educ Measure Issues Prac 2005 24 2 3 13 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
  16. Tarrant M Ware J A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments Nurs Educ Today 2010 30 6 539 43 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002
  17. Messick S Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment Educ Measure Issues Prac 1995 14 5 8 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x
  18. Downing SM Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data Med Educ 2003 37 830 7 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
  19. Kern DE Thomas PA Hughes MT Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach 2009 2 Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press
  20. Miller GE The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance Acad Med 1990 65 563 7 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045
  21. De Champlain A A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessment in medical education Med Educ 2010 44 109 17 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03425.x
  22. Tavakol M Dennick R Post-examination analysis of objective tests Med Teach 2011 33 447 58 10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682
  23. Oosterhof AC Similarity of various item discrimination indices J Edu Meas 1976 13 145 50 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1976.tb00005.x
  24. Attali Y Fraenkel T The point-biserial as a discrimination index for distractors in multiple-choice items: deficiencies in usage and an alternative J Edu Meas 2000 37 77 86 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01077.x
Language: English
Page range: 244 - 251
Published on: Sep 8, 2015
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2015 Syed Haris Ali, Kenneth G. Ruit, published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.