A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments
- PMID: 20053488
- DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002
A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments
Abstract
In multiple-choice tests, four-option items are the standard in nursing education. There are few evidence-based reasons, however, for MCQs to have four or more options as studies have shown that three-option items perform equally as well and the additional options most often do not improve test reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the psychometric properties of four-option items with the same items rewritten as three-option items. Using item-analysis data to eliminate the distractor with the lowest response rate, we compared three- and four-option versions of 41 multiple-choice items administered to two student cohorts over two subsequent academic years. Removing the non-functioning distractor resulted in minimal changes in item difficulty and discrimination. Three-option items contained more functioning distractors despite having fewer distractors overall. Existing distractors became more discriminating when infrequently selected distractors were removed from items. Overall, three-option items perform equally as well as four-option items. Since three-option items require less time to develop and administer and additional options provide no psychometric advantage, teachers are encouraged to adopt three-option items as the standard on multiple-choice tests.
Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
High time for a change: psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing.Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012 Nov 26;9:/j/ijnes.2012.9.issue-1/1548-923X.2487/1548-923X.2487.xml. doi: 10.1515/1548-923X.2487. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012. PMID: 23192053
-
The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.Nurse Educ Today. 2006 Dec;26(8):662-71. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.006. Epub 2006 Oct 2. Nurse Educ Today. 2006. PMID: 17014932
-
Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options.Natl Med J India. 2008 May-Jun;21(3):130-3. Natl Med J India. 2008. PMID: 19004145 Review.
-
The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education.Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10(2):133-43. doi: 10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005. PMID: 16078098
-
Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking.J Nurs Educ. 2001 Jan;40(1):17-24. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-20010101-06. J Nurs Educ. 2001. PMID: 11198905 Review.
Cited by
-
A Novel Multiple Choice Question Generation Strategy: Alternative Uses for Controlled Vocabulary Thesauri in Biomedical-Sciences Education.AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015 Nov 5;2015:861-9. eCollection 2015. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015. PMID: 26958222 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course.Vet Sci. 2018 Jun 9;5(2):55. doi: 10.3390/vetsci5020055. Vet Sci. 2018. PMID: 29890727 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of 3- and 4-option multiple-choice items for medical subspecialty in-training examinations.BMC Med Educ. 2023 Apr 27;23(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04277-2. BMC Med Educ. 2023. PMID: 37106417 Free PMC article.
-
How important is distractor efficiency for grading Best Answer Questions?BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jan 7;21(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02463-0. BMC Med Educ. 2021. PMID: 33413332 Free PMC article.
-
Postexamination item analysis of undergraduate pediatric multiple-choice questions exam: implications for developing a validated question Bank.BMC Med Educ. 2024 Feb 21;24(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05153-3. BMC Med Educ. 2024. PMID: 38383427 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources