Skip to main content
Log in

Difficulty and Discriminative Ability of Various Categories of Multiple Choice Questions in Medical School Preclerkship Examinations

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In the USA, medical licensing exams have attempted to test the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy by using multiple choice questions (MCQ) that incorporate clinical or experimental vignettes.

Aim

We wished to determine if the nature of the vignette altered the difficulty and discriminative ability of our MCQ.

Methods

We assigned our regular course MCQ to categories. Recall questions had no context. Pseudo-vignette questions had a context not needed to answer the question. Vignette 1 or vignette 2 questions required extracting information from the vignette. Difficulty (DIFF), discrimination index (DI), and point biserial correlation coefficient (PtBiS) were calculated for 1,690 questions used during our preclerkship curriculum.

Results

Recall questions were more common during the first year. Pseudo-vignette questions maintained approximately the same frequency across the courses. Vignette 1 and vignette 2 questions increased gradually. During the first year, questions were less difficult but more discriminating than during the second year. In the first year, recall questions were less difficult and discriminating than vignette questions. These differences disappeared during the second year, when DIFF, DI, and PtBiS did not differ significantly among the question formats.

Conclusions

The differences between the results of testing in first and second years may reflect experience with vignette-type questions, true learning, or a combination of both.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Breitbach AP. Creating effective multiple choice items. Athl Ther Today. 2010;15:18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Case SM and Swanson DB. 2002. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. 3rd ed. Retrieved March 11, 2013. Available from: http://www.nbme.org/publications/item-writing-manual.html.

  3. Case SM, Swanson DB, Becker DF. Verbosity, window dressing, and red herrings: do they make a better test item? Acad Med. 1996;71:S28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc and the National Board of Medical Examiners. 2013 Step 1, Content Description and General Information. Retrieved October 15, 2013 Available from: http://www.usmle.org/step-1/.

  5. Flateby TL. A guide for writing and improving achievement tests. Office of the Provost, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL Retrieved, June 26, 2014 Available from: http://www.acad.usf.edu/Office/IE/Resources/Guide.pdf.

  6. Fuller S, Horlen C, Cisneros R, Merz T. Pharmacy students’ reading ability and the readability of required reading materials. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71:111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Meas Educ. 1989;2:37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Meas Educ. 1989;2:51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 2002;15:309–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haught PA, Walls RT. Relationships of reading, MCAT, and USMLE Step 1 test results for medical students. Read Psychol. 2004;25:83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson JR, Brooks CM. Relationship among the MCAT reading subtest, Nelson-Denny Reading test, and medical school achievement. J Med Educ. 1985;60:478–80.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theor Pract. 2002;41:212–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nazian SJ, Stevenson FT. The use of horizontal basic science proficiencies in a systems based curriculum. Med Sci Educ. 2013;23:2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sim S-M, Rasiah RI. Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2006;35:67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tarrant MT, Ware JW. A framework for improving the quality of multiple-choice assessments. Nurse Educ. 2012;37:98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine Program Objectives. Retrieved October 15, 2013 Available from: http://health.usf.edu/medicine/mdprogram/core/objectives.htm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanley J. Nazian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nazian, S.J., Stevenson, F.T. Difficulty and Discriminative Ability of Various Categories of Multiple Choice Questions in Medical School Preclerkship Examinations. Med.Sci.Educ. 24, 387–393 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-014-0069-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-014-0069-3

Keywords

Navigation