Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course

The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r<sub>pbis</sub>), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and r<sub>pbis</sub> (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions (<i>p</i> = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF; <i>p</i> = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of CME
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Innovations in Medical Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.09
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course

Erika L. Blanck, Christine DiStefano, L. Britt Wilson, Huijuan Wang
2 citations
Journal of CME
Innovations in Medical Education
1.09
article

Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course

Erika L. Blanck, Christine DiStefano, L. Britt Wilson, Huijuan Wang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r<sub>pbis</sub>), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and r<sub>pbis</sub> (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions (<i>p</i> = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF; <i>p</i> = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.

Journal of CMEVol. 13(1)
University of South Carolina (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Innovations in Medical Education
1.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.