通过项目分析来保证选择题考试的质量

Mashood -uz-Zafar Farooq, Shama Mashood
{"title":"通过项目分析来保证选择题考试的质量","authors":"Mashood -uz-Zafar Farooq, Shama Mashood","doi":"10.37185/lns.1.1.315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To analyze the value of in use multiple choice questions of ophthalmology by finding discrimination index, distractor efficiency and difficulty index.Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Place and Duration of Study: The Study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Karachi Institute of Medical Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan from January 2022 to March 2022. Methods: The study included result of all multiple-choice questions administered during pre-annual examination of the year 2021. There were 45 multiple-choice questions with one correct option and three distractors. Analysis of each item was performed to find difficulty discrimination index and distractor efficiency.Data were entered and analyzed by SPSS software 20.0. Frequency and percentage were calculated for all categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were considered for all continuous variables. Difficulty and discrimination index and distractor efficiency were calculated for multiple-choice questions.Results: Overall, 68.9% had good/acceptable levels of difficulty and were stored, whereas 24.4% were too easy and 6.7% were too complex and confusing. Discrimination analysis demonstrated 27 items to be excellent, 13 good and 5 having poor discrimination. Distractor efficacy was found to be 93.32±19.60. Out of 135 distractors, 129 were functional while non-functioning distractor (NFD) were 6.Conclusion: Item analysis is a valuable assessment tool that identifies better multiple-choice questions to be retained while discarding or reviewing the weak ones. Faculty development programs should be organized for improving item writing skills of faculty
 How to cite this: Farooq MZ, Mashhood S. Quality Assurance of Multiple Choice Questions Test Through Item Analysis. Life and Science. 2023; 4(4): 499-505. doi: http://doi.org/10.37185/LnS.1.1.315","PeriodicalId":15254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biology and Life Science","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality Assurance of Multiple-Choice Questions Test Through Item Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mashood -uz-Zafar Farooq, Shama Mashood\",\"doi\":\"10.37185/lns.1.1.315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To analyze the value of in use multiple choice questions of ophthalmology by finding discrimination index, distractor efficiency and difficulty index.Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Place and Duration of Study: The Study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Karachi Institute of Medical Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan from January 2022 to March 2022. Methods: The study included result of all multiple-choice questions administered during pre-annual examination of the year 2021. There were 45 multiple-choice questions with one correct option and three distractors. Analysis of each item was performed to find difficulty discrimination index and distractor efficiency.Data were entered and analyzed by SPSS software 20.0. Frequency and percentage were calculated for all categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were considered for all continuous variables. Difficulty and discrimination index and distractor efficiency were calculated for multiple-choice questions.Results: Overall, 68.9% had good/acceptable levels of difficulty and were stored, whereas 24.4% were too easy and 6.7% were too complex and confusing. Discrimination analysis demonstrated 27 items to be excellent, 13 good and 5 having poor discrimination. Distractor efficacy was found to be 93.32±19.60. Out of 135 distractors, 129 were functional while non-functioning distractor (NFD) were 6.Conclusion: Item analysis is a valuable assessment tool that identifies better multiple-choice questions to be retained while discarding or reviewing the weak ones. Faculty development programs should be organized for improving item writing skills of faculty
 How to cite this: Farooq MZ, Mashhood S. Quality Assurance of Multiple Choice Questions Test Through Item Analysis. Life and Science. 2023; 4(4): 499-505. doi: http://doi.org/10.37185/LnS.1.1.315\",\"PeriodicalId\":15254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biology and Life Science\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biology and Life Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37185/lns.1.1.315\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biology and Life Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37185/lns.1.1.315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过寻找识别指数、牵张器效率和难度指数,分析在用眼科选择题的价值。研究设计:横断面研究。研究地点和时间:研究于2022年1月至2022年3月在巴基斯坦卡拉奇卡拉奇医学研究所眼科进行。方法:研究纳入了2021年度年度前考试中所有选择题的结果。有45道选择题,有一个正确选项和三个干扰因素。对每个题项进行分析,找出困难辨别指数和分心效率。数据录入采用SPSS 20.0软件进行统计分析。对所有分类变量计算频率和百分比,对所有连续变量考虑均值和标准差。计算多项选择题的难度、辨析指数和分心效率。结果:总体而言,68.9%的人难度好或可接受,而24.4%的人过于容易,6.7%的人过于复杂和混乱。判别分析显示,优27项,良13项,差5项。牵张剂的有效性为93.32±19.60。在135个干扰物中,129个是功能性的,6个是非功能性的。结论:项目分析是一种有价值的评估工具,它可以识别出更好的选择题,同时丢弃或复习较差的选择题。应组织教师发展计划,提高教师的项目写作技能 如何引用:Farooq MZ, Mashhood S.通过项目分析来保证选择题考试的质量。生命与科学。2023;4(4): 499 - 505。doi: http://doi.org/10.37185/LnS.1.1.315
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality Assurance of Multiple-Choice Questions Test Through Item Analysis
Objective: To analyze the value of in use multiple choice questions of ophthalmology by finding discrimination index, distractor efficiency and difficulty index.Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Place and Duration of Study: The Study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Karachi Institute of Medical Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan from January 2022 to March 2022. Methods: The study included result of all multiple-choice questions administered during pre-annual examination of the year 2021. There were 45 multiple-choice questions with one correct option and three distractors. Analysis of each item was performed to find difficulty discrimination index and distractor efficiency.Data were entered and analyzed by SPSS software 20.0. Frequency and percentage were calculated for all categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were considered for all continuous variables. Difficulty and discrimination index and distractor efficiency were calculated for multiple-choice questions.Results: Overall, 68.9% had good/acceptable levels of difficulty and were stored, whereas 24.4% were too easy and 6.7% were too complex and confusing. Discrimination analysis demonstrated 27 items to be excellent, 13 good and 5 having poor discrimination. Distractor efficacy was found to be 93.32±19.60. Out of 135 distractors, 129 were functional while non-functioning distractor (NFD) were 6.Conclusion: Item analysis is a valuable assessment tool that identifies better multiple-choice questions to be retained while discarding or reviewing the weak ones. Faculty development programs should be organized for improving item writing skills of faculty How to cite this: Farooq MZ, Mashhood S. Quality Assurance of Multiple Choice Questions Test Through Item Analysis. Life and Science. 2023; 4(4): 499-505. doi: http://doi.org/10.37185/LnS.1.1.315
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信