已出版的《妇产科学》试题库中多项选择题的结构和写作缺陷:采用、谨慎还是缓解?

Avicenna Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2022-08-31 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1755332
Magdy H Balaha, Mona T El-Ibiary, Ayman A El-Dorf, Shereef L El-Shewaikh, Hossam M Balaha
{"title":"已出版的《妇产科学》试题库中多项选择题的结构和写作缺陷:采用、谨慎还是缓解?","authors":"Magdy H Balaha, Mona T El-Ibiary, Ayman A El-Dorf, Shereef L El-Shewaikh, Hossam M Balaha","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1755332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. <b>Methods</b>  This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. <b>Results</b>  Twenty three percent of the items ( <i>n</i>  = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% ( <i>n</i>  = 690) contained one violation, and 47% ( <i>n</i>  = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were \"Options are Not in Order (61%).\" The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. <b>Conclusion</b>  There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":32889,"journal":{"name":"Avicenna Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b4/4e/10-1055-s-0042-1755332.PMC9458348.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?\",\"authors\":\"Magdy H Balaha, Mona T El-Ibiary, Ayman A El-Dorf, Shereef L El-Shewaikh, Hossam M Balaha\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0042-1755332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. <b>Methods</b>  This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. <b>Results</b>  Twenty three percent of the items ( <i>n</i>  = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% ( <i>n</i>  = 690) contained one violation, and 47% ( <i>n</i>  = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were \\\"Options are Not in Order (61%).\\\" The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. <b>Conclusion</b>  There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Avicenna Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b4/4e/10-1055-s-0042-1755332.PMC9458348.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Avicenna Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Avicenna Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 选择题(MCQs)中的题目书写缺陷(IWFs)会影响测验的效度。本研究的目的是探索已出版资源中的 IWFs,估计其频率和模式,对当前的学习资源进行排序和比较,并为教师和考试编写者提出可能的影响。方法 本横断面研究于 2017 年 9 月至 2020 年 12 月进行。目标资源为已出版的妇产科MCQ书籍中的MCQ。它们被分层为四个群组(学习用书相关、复习用书、自测用书和在线共享试题库)。对样本量进行了估算,从 11 195 个符合条件的 MCQ 中随机抽取了 2 300 个。评判 MCQ(项目)的依据是一份由 20 个要素组成的检查表,该检查表分为以下三个部分:(1) 结构缺陷(7 个要素);(2) 测试智慧缺陷(5 个要素);(3) 无关难度缺陷(8 个要素)。评分采用二分法,0 = 违规,1 = 不违规。项目缺陷使用 Excel 电子表格和 IBM SPSS 进行记录和分析。结果 23% 的项目(n = 537)不存在任何违规行为,30% 的项目(n = 690)存在一个违规行为,47% 的项目(n = 1073)存在一个以上的违规行为。最常报告的 IWF 是 "选项不符合要求(61%)"。瑕疵最少的最佳试题(第 75 百分位数)来自自我评估书籍,其次是与学习相关的 MCQ 书籍。自测类图书中高质量题目的平均得分明显高于其他类图书。结论 违规题目的表现形式和百分比各不相同。与复习相关的 MCQ 书籍和在线共享试题库中的试题质量较低。使用这些资源中的试题需要谨慎或避免。自测题的质量相对较高,其次是与学习相关的 MCQ 书籍。如有必要,可采用减轻影响的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?

Background  The item-writing flaws (IWFs) in multiple-choice questions (MCQs) can affect test validity. The purpose of this study was to explore the IWFs in the published resources, estimate their frequency and pattern, rank, and compare the current study resources, and propose a possible impact for teachers and test writers. Methods  This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to December 2020. MCQs from the published MCQ books in Obstetrics and Gynecology was the target resources. They were stratified into four clusters (study-book related, review books, self-assessment books, and online-shared test banks). The sample size was estimated and 2,300 out of 11,195 eligible MCQs were randomly selected. The MCQs (items) were judged on a 20-element compiled checklist that is organized under three sections as follows: (1) structural flaws (seven elements), (2) test-wiseness flaws (five elements), and (3) irrelevant difficulty flaws (eight elements). Rating was done dichotomously, 0 = violating and 1 = not violating. Item flaws were recorded and analyzed using the Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS. Results  Twenty three percent of the items ( n  = 537) were free from any violations, whereas 30% ( n  = 690) contained one violation, and 47% ( n  = 1073) contained more than one violation. The most commonly reported IWFs were "Options are Not in Order (61%)." The best questions with the least flaws (75th percentiles) were obtained from the self-assessment books followed by study-related MCQ books. The average scores of good-quality items in the cluster of self-assessment books were significantly higher than other book clusters. Conclusion  There were variable presentations and percentages of item violations. Lower quality questions were observed in review-related MCQ books and the online-shared test banks. Using questions from these resources needs a caution or avoidance strategy. Relative higher quality questions were reported for the self-assessment followed by the study-related MCQ books. An adoption strategy may be applied with mitigation if needed.

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
28
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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