人类医学学生多选择评估中的心理测量指标比较

Q2 Social Sciences
Adriana Villa Villavicencio, Mariana Gómez Zamalloa, Diana Gabriela Ocsas Pinedo, César Gutiérrez
{"title":"人类医学学生多选择评估中的心理测量指标比较","authors":"Adriana Villa Villavicencio,&nbsp;Mariana Gómez Zamalloa,&nbsp;Diana Gabriela Ocsas Pinedo,&nbsp;César Gutiérrez","doi":"10.1016/j.edumed.2025.101025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Multiple-choice tests are essential in educational assessment, especially in medicine. Peruvian studies show that 3 and 5 alternatives have similar effectiveness, but the optimal number of alternatives remains debated globally.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional study with students from the assignment “<em>Metodología de la Investigación Científica II</em>”, who took assessments with four and five alternatives. Difficulty and discrimination index were calculated using Excel and Jamovi. Kruskal-Wallis test and concordance correlation coefficient where used fot he analysis, and chi-square test was used to compare distributions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 55 students were included. The difficulty index showed similar medians for both 4 and 5 alternatives (p = 0.824), as did the discrimination index, which also did not identify differences between the medians (p = 0.654). The concordance values for the difficulty index indicated good consistency in both the midterm and final exams, with values of 0.925 (95% CI: 0.866 to 0.959) and 0.889 (95% CI: 0.822 to 0.932), respectively. The concordance for the discrimination index was low, with values of 0.318 (95% CI:<!--> <!-->−0.009 to 0.585) and<!--> <!-->−0.006 (95% CI:<!--> <!-->−0.247 to 0.259) for the midterm and final exams, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>We did not find significant differences in the difficulty and discrimination of questions with 4 and 5 options. We suggest the use of 4 alternative questions in objective exams in research courses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35317,"journal":{"name":"Educacion Medica","volume":"26 2","pages":"Article 101025"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparación de indicadores psicométricos en evaluaciones de opción múltiple entre estudiantes de Medicina Humana\",\"authors\":\"Adriana Villa Villavicencio,&nbsp;Mariana Gómez Zamalloa,&nbsp;Diana Gabriela Ocsas Pinedo,&nbsp;César Gutiérrez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edumed.2025.101025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Multiple-choice tests are essential in educational assessment, especially in medicine. Peruvian studies show that 3 and 5 alternatives have similar effectiveness, but the optimal number of alternatives remains debated globally.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional study with students from the assignment “<em>Metodología de la Investigación Científica II</em>”, who took assessments with four and five alternatives. Difficulty and discrimination index were calculated using Excel and Jamovi. Kruskal-Wallis test and concordance correlation coefficient where used fot he analysis, and chi-square test was used to compare distributions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 55 students were included. The difficulty index showed similar medians for both 4 and 5 alternatives (p = 0.824), as did the discrimination index, which also did not identify differences between the medians (p = 0.654). The concordance values for the difficulty index indicated good consistency in both the midterm and final exams, with values of 0.925 (95% CI: 0.866 to 0.959) and 0.889 (95% CI: 0.822 to 0.932), respectively. The concordance for the discrimination index was low, with values of 0.318 (95% CI:<!--> <!-->−0.009 to 0.585) and<!--> <!-->−0.006 (95% CI:<!--> <!-->−0.247 to 0.259) for the midterm and final exams, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>We did not find significant differences in the difficulty and discrimination of questions with 4 and 5 options. We suggest the use of 4 alternative questions in objective exams in research courses.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educacion Medica\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 101025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educacion Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1575181325000038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educacion Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1575181325000038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多项选择题在教育评估中是必不可少的,尤其是在医学领域。秘鲁的研究表明,3种和5种替代方案的效果相似,但全球仍在争论最佳替代方案的数量。方法我们对作业“Metodología de la Investigación Científica II”的学生进行了横断面研究,他们接受了四种和五种选择的评估。使用Excel和Jamovi计算难度和鉴别指数。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和一致性相关系数进行分析,采用卡方检验进行分布比较。结果共纳入55名学生。难度指数显示4和5个选项的中位数相似(p = 0.824),辨别指数也是如此,也没有识别中位数之间的差异(p = 0.654)。难度指数的一致性值在期中和期末考试中表现出较好的一致性,分别为0.925 (95% CI: 0.866 ~ 0.959)和0.889 (95% CI: 0.822 ~ 0.932)。鉴别指数的一致性较低,期中和期末考试的鉴别指数分别为0.318 (95% CI:−0.009 ~ 0.585)和−0.006 (95% CI:−0.247 ~ 0.259)。结论4选项题和5选项题的难度和辨别性无显著差异。我们建议在研究性课程的客观考试中使用4个备选题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparación de indicadores psicométricos en evaluaciones de opción múltiple entre estudiantes de Medicina Humana

Introduction

Multiple-choice tests are essential in educational assessment, especially in medicine. Peruvian studies show that 3 and 5 alternatives have similar effectiveness, but the optimal number of alternatives remains debated globally.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study with students from the assignment “Metodología de la Investigación Científica II”, who took assessments with four and five alternatives. Difficulty and discrimination index were calculated using Excel and Jamovi. Kruskal-Wallis test and concordance correlation coefficient where used fot he analysis, and chi-square test was used to compare distributions.

Results

A total of 55 students were included. The difficulty index showed similar medians for both 4 and 5 alternatives (p = 0.824), as did the discrimination index, which also did not identify differences between the medians (p = 0.654). The concordance values for the difficulty index indicated good consistency in both the midterm and final exams, with values of 0.925 (95% CI: 0.866 to 0.959) and 0.889 (95% CI: 0.822 to 0.932), respectively. The concordance for the discrimination index was low, with values of 0.318 (95% CI: −0.009 to 0.585) and −0.006 (95% CI: −0.247 to 0.259) for the midterm and final exams, respectively.

Conclusion

We did not find significant differences in the difficulty and discrimination of questions with 4 and 5 options. We suggest the use of 4 alternative questions in objective exams in research courses.
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
Educacion Medica
Educacion Medica Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Educación Médica, revista trimestral que se viene publicando desde 1998 es editada desde enero de 2003 por la Fundación Educación Médica. Pretende contribuir a la difusión de los estudios y trabajos que en este campo se están llevando a cabo en todo el mundo, pero de una manera especial en nuestro entorno. Los artículos de Educación Médica tratarán tanto sobre aspectos prácticos de la docencia en su día a día como sobre cuestiones más teóricas de la educación médica. Así mismo, la revista intentará proporcionar análisis y opiniones de expertos de reconocido prestigio internacional.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信