Volume 19, Issue 4 (July - August 2020)
Payesh 2020, 19(4): 383-389 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khajeali N, Aslami M, Araban M. Analysis of medical and dentistry basic sciences examinations: A case study. Payesh 2020; 19 (4) :383-389
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1409-en.html
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1409-en.html
1- Razi Hospital Research Center, Razi Hospital Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2- MSc in Medical Education, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
3- Department of Health Education and Promotion, Public Health School, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2- MSc in Medical Education, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
3- Department of Health Education and Promotion, Public Health School, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract: (3573 Views)
Objective (s): Multiple choice questions are the central core of the evaluation of medical students. The purpose of this study was to analyze medical and dentistry basic sciences examinations in Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in 2015.
Methods: A valid checklist for totally 450 multiple choice questions (225 questions for each field), were analyzed in terms of structure, difficulty index, discrimination index and diversion options. Structure of the questions was analyzed by a checklist consisting of 16 items with yes or no formats. Difficulty and discrimination indexes for each question also were examined. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics were used.
Results: There were structural problems with 6 and 5 percent of medical and dentistry questions respectively. In For medical examination on average 50.1% required difficulty indexes, 25.8% required discrimination indexes and 73.5% diversion options were achieved. For dentistry examination on average 50.07% required difficulty indexes, 23.07% required discrimination indexes and 53.46% diversion options were achieved.
Conclusion: The findings indicated that frequency of the questions with required difficulty index, were rather good but frequency of the questions with required discrimination index, were relatively very low. Diversion options in medical questions were designed better than dentistry questions. Indeed, it seems that examinations of medical and density students need some revisions and corrections.
Methods: A valid checklist for totally 450 multiple choice questions (225 questions for each field), were analyzed in terms of structure, difficulty index, discrimination index and diversion options. Structure of the questions was analyzed by a checklist consisting of 16 items with yes or no formats. Difficulty and discrimination indexes for each question also were examined. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics were used.
Results: There were structural problems with 6 and 5 percent of medical and dentistry questions respectively. In For medical examination on average 50.1% required difficulty indexes, 25.8% required discrimination indexes and 73.5% diversion options were achieved. For dentistry examination on average 50.07% required difficulty indexes, 23.07% required discrimination indexes and 53.46% diversion options were achieved.
Conclusion: The findings indicated that frequency of the questions with required difficulty index, were rather good but frequency of the questions with required discrimination index, were relatively very low. Diversion options in medical questions were designed better than dentistry questions. Indeed, it seems that examinations of medical and density students need some revisions and corrections.
type of study: Descriptive |
Received: 2020/07/7 | Accepted: 2020/07/22 | ePublished ahead of print: 2020/07/25 | Published: 2020/09/5
Received: 2020/07/7 | Accepted: 2020/07/22 | ePublished ahead of print: 2020/07/25 | Published: 2020/09/5
References
1. HosseiniTeshnizi S, Zare SH, Solati SM. Quality analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs) examinations of noncontinuous undergraduate medical records. Hormozgan Medical Journal 2010;14:177-83
2. Pepple DJ, Young LE, Carroll RG. A comparison of student performance in multiple-choice and long essay questions in the MBBS stage I physiology examination at the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus). Advances in Physiology Education 2010;34:86-9 [DOI:10.1152/advan.00087.2009]
3. Van Bruggen L, Manrique-van Woudenbergh M, Spierenburg E, Vos J. Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study. Perspectives on Medical Education 2012;1:162-71 [DOI:10.1007/s40037-012-0024-1]
4. Nnodim JO. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy. Medicine Education 1992;26:301-9 [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00173.x]
5. Azizi F. Medical Education Challenges and Prospects. Tehran: Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. 2003:686-96
6. Levant B, Zückert W, Paolo A. Post-exam feedback with question rationales improves re-test performance of medical students on a multiple-choice exam. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2018;23:995-1003 [DOI:10.1007/s10459-018-9844-z]
7. Chernoff EJ, Mamolo A, Zazkis R. An Investigation of the Representativeness Heuristic: The Case of a Multiple Choice Exam. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016;12:1009-31 [DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1252a]
8. Vyas R, Supe A. Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options. The National Medical Journal of India. 2008 Jun;21:130-3
9. Tarrant M, Knierim A, Hayes SK, Ware J. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurse education in practice. 2006;6:354-63 [DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2006.07.002]
10. Masters JC, Hulsmeyer BS, Pike ME, Leichty K, Miller MT, Verst AL. Assessment of multiple-choice questions in selected test banks accompanying text books used in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education 2001;40:25-32 [DOI:10.3928/0148-4834-20010101-07]
11. Mccoubrie P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Medical teacher. 2004;26:709-12 [DOI:10.1080/01421590400013495]
12. Sayyah M, Vakili Z, Alavi NM, Bigdeli M, Soleymani A, Assarian M, et al. An Item Analysis of Written Multiple-Choice Questions: Kashan University of Medical Sciences. Nursing and Midwifery Studies 2012;1:83-7 [DOI:10.5812/nms.8738]
13. Gajjar S, Sharma R, Kumar P, Rana M. Item and Test Analysis to Identify Quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from an Assessment of Medical Students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Indian Journal Community Med. 2014;39:17-20 [DOI:10.4103/0970-0218.126347]
14. Ellsworth RA, Dunnell P, Duell OK. Multiple-choice test items: what are textbook authors telling teachers? The Journal of Educational Research. 1990;83:289-93 [DOI:10.1080/00220671.1990.10885972]
15. owning 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. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2005;10:133-43 [DOI:10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5]
16. Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Academic Medicine 2002;77:156-61 [DOI:10.1097/00001888-200202000-00016]
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |