A Comparison between Three-and Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions

Dehnad, Afsaneh; Nasser, Hayedeh; Hosseini, Agha Fatemeh

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.432

Cited by 24 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…22,23 Therefore, a wise combination of such MCQ tools during formative internal assessments might help in early recognition of poor performers (average or low students) and adopting suitable measures e.g. special classes/tutorials for improving their performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of MCQ subtypes with grading of performance among undergraduate students in a preclinical discipline

Ghate

Sinha

2017

Int J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONIt is a well-known fact that methods of assessment drives learning and holds utmost important place in medical education. 1 Hence it is very important to use various assessment tools which can test the qualities of a medical student who are going to be professionals. Multiple choice questions (MCQs) based evaluation is one of the commonly used methods of formative assessment of medical students apart from structured short answer questions, long answer questions and practical examination. MCQs are reliable tools and suitable for use due to its obsectivized scoring and ease of administration. But, some even criticized MCQs with the claim that they cannot assess higher order learning and analytical skills. However, a properly constructed MCQ can assess not only cognitive but also affective, as well as psychomotor domain besides having other important features like, ABSTRACT Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) remain an important tool for objective assessment in medical students wherein different types of MCQs reflect students' performance towards various aspects of cognitive domain. Thus, all students may not perform with similar ability across all different types of MCQs. In this context, the current study aim to investigate whether performance of medical students in MCQ based assessment relates to the performance in different subtypes of MCQs in Physiology. Methods: Marks obtained in 65 MCQ during formative assessment by 145 first year MBBS students were segregated into four different types of standard MCQs attempted (i.e. Single Response-SRQ, Multiple Response-MRQ, ReasonAssertion-RAQ and Problem based-PBQ) while students were grouped into High, Medium and Low achievers (HA, MA and LA respectively) in relation to their total score. Results: Result showed highest scores in SRQ (69.00±11.6%, 57.34±11.12% and 40.11±13.03%) and PBQ (71.04±11.68%, 59.38±15.36% and 42.35±15.72%) but lowest in MRQ (49.16±11.58%, 41.39±12.42% and 30.78±14.10%) and RAQ (48.82±12.48%, 44.17±14.25% and 31.80±13.05%) for HA, MA and LA respectively with significant differences among all groups. However, total MCQ marks were significantly correlated with MRQ and PBQ for HA; with SRQ and MRQ for MA; and SRQ, MRQ and PBQ for LA. Conclusions: MRQ might have significant influence on the outcome of MCQ based assessment in differentiating between high and medium achievers, whereas both MRQ and PBQ shows potential to differentiate between high and low achieving students. This may be utilized for effective screening in summative assessments or progress of learning in formative assessment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of MCQ subtypes with grading of performance among undergraduate students in a preclinical discipline

Ghate

Sinha

2017

Int J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accomplished the construction of the instrument, the instrument of integrated assessment consisted of 37 open-ended multiple-choice questions, with five alternatives each one lettered A-E out of which only one was the correct as of the accepted answer. The more options within will increase reliability (Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010) and reduce success in guessing the answers (Dehnad et al, 2014).…”

Section: The Integrated Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring and Comparing Content Validity and Assumptions of Modern Theory of an Integrated Assessment: Critical Thinking-Chemical Literacy Studies

Sadhu

Ad’hiya

Laksono

2019

JPII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of chemical literacy as well as critical thinking, are a prominent objective of science education and become essential skills in the 21st century. The stress has not been given to the measurement of both skills together in chemistry content in high school. Another problem shows in developing an instrument in which teachers often do not know whether the content and construct that they developed in the tool can measure the skill that supposed to be measured. The first step the teacher should do is studying the content validity when an instrument has been constructed and also psychometric testing is needed. Hence, this is addressed for exploring the content validity evidence, even assumptions for the modern theory in integrated assessment for measuring students' chemical literacy and critical thinking. Also, comparing a result of content validity and assumptions for modern theory to know which is mandatory for research instrument. The initial integrated assessment consists of 37 items. Content validity was first piloted under a review of six experts and also 133 participants involved to determine the assumptions of modern theory in integrated assessment. From this study, it can be confirmed that the development of the integrated assessment on the content validity can be used to measure 13 integrated skills of chemical literacy and also critical thinking in chemical equilibrium, and an assumption for modern theory met with the standard of the valid instrument. In general, to know the quality of the items test using more sophisticated statistical analysis, the integrated assessment is appropriate for measuring the big-scale of the paper-pencil test. The outcome of this research will help teacher/lecturer in the analysis quality of an assessment that will be used in student's evaluation

show abstract

“…Literature on MCQs generally accepts their ubiquity and prioritises practical treatments: guidelines for optimising and construction (Dell and Wantuch 2017;Consodine et al 2005;Haladyna 2004;Bull and McKenna 2004;Morrison and Free 2001); ways of easing construction (Dehnad et al 2014); and strategies for minimising the scope for guessing beyond the base mathematical probabilities (Bush 2015;Ibbot and Wheldon 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple choice questions: answering correctly and knowing the answer

McKenna

2019

ITSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple Choice Questions come with the correct answer. Examinees have various reasons for selecting their answer, other than knowing it to be correct. Yet MCQs are common as summative assessments in the education of Computer Science and Information Systems students.To what extent can MCQs be answered correctly without knowing the answer; and can alternatives such as constructed response questions offer more reliable assessment while maintaining objectivity and automation? This study sought to establish whether MCQs can be relied upon to assess knowledge and understanding. It presents a critical review of existing research on MCQs, then reports on an experimental study in which two objective tests were set for an introductory undergraduate course on bitmap graphics: one using MCQs, the other constructed responses, to establish whether and to what extent MCQs can be answered correctly without knowing the answer. Even though the experiment design meant that students had more learning opportunity prior to taking the constructed response test, student marks were higher in the MCQ test, and most students who excelled in the MCQ test did not do so in the constructed response test. The study concludes that students who selected the correct answer from a list of four options, did not necessarily know the correct answer. While not all subjects lend themselves to objectively testable constructive response questions, the study further indicates that MCQs by definition can overestimate student understanding. It concludes that while MCQs have a role in formative assessment, they should not be used in summative assessments.

show abstract

A Comparison between Three-and Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Correlation of MCQ subtypes with grading of performance among undergraduate students in a preclinical discipline

Correlation of MCQ subtypes with grading of performance among undergraduate students in a preclinical discipline

Exploring and Comparing Content Validity and Assumptions of Modern Theory of an Integrated Assessment: Critical Thinking-Chemical Literacy Studies

Multiple choice questions: answering correctly and knowing the answer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About