ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in an innovative curriculum in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Item analysis and performance of EMQ, MCQ, and SAQ in dental education and students' perception of extended-matching questions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Medical licensing examination preparatory program: designing, implementing, and evaluation for Saudi medical interns.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Ensuring Quality in AI-Generated MCQs: The Critical Roles of Human Oversight and Psychometric Analysis.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Determining the alignment of assessment items with curriculum goals through document analysis by addressing identified item flaws.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparing students' performance in self-directed and directed self-learning in College of Medicine, University of Bisha.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2024Article
- Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWorldwide, medical education and assessment of medical students are evolving. Psychometric analysis of the adopted assessment methods is thus, necessary for an efficient, reliable, valid and evidence based approach to the assessment of the students. The objective of this study was to determine the pattern of psychometric analysis of our courses conducted in the academic year 2018-2019, in an innovative curriculum.
methodsIt was a cross-sectional-design study involving review of examination items over one academic session -2018/2019. All exam item analysis of courses completed within the three phases of the year were analyzed using SPSS V20 statistical software.
resultsThere were 24 courses conducted during the academic year 2018-2019, across the three academic phases. The total examination items were 1073 with 3219 distractors in one of four best option multiple choice questions (MCQs). The item analysis showed that the mean difficulty index (DIF I) was 79.1 ± 3.3. Items with good discrimination have a mean of 65 ± 11.2 and a distractor efficiency of 80.9%. Reliability Index (Kr20) across all exams in the three phases was 0.75. There was a significant difference within the examination items block (F = 12.31, F
conclusionThe psychometric analysis showed that the quality of examination questions was valid and reliable. Though differences were observed in items quality between different phases of study as well as within courses of study, it has generally remained consistent throughout the session. More efforts need to be channeled towards improving the quality in the future is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.