Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37001510›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2023

Scoring Single-Response Multiple-Choice Items: Scoping Review and Comparison of Different Scoring Methods.

Amelie Friederike Kanzow, Dennis Schmidt, Philipp Kanzow

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Applying Progress Testing to Undergraduate Periodontal Courses-A First Evaluation After 2 Years of Use in a German University.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amelie Friederike KanzowStudy Deanery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1536-3248
Dennis SchmidtDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-5299
Philipp KanzowDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2169-561X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-choice items (eg, best-answer items, alternate-choice items, single true-false items) are 1 type of multiple-choice items and have been used in examinations for over 100 years. At the end of every examination, the examinees' responses have to be analyzed and scored to derive information about examinees' true knowledge.

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to compile scoring methods for individual single-choice items described in the literature. Furthermore, the metric expected chance score and the relation between examinees' true knowledge and expected scoring results (averaged percentage score) are analyzed. Besides, implications for potential pass marks to be used in examinations to test examinees for a predefined level of true knowledge are derived.

methodsScoring methods for individual single-choice items were extracted from various databases (ERIC, PsycInfo, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE via PubMed) in September 2020. Eligible sources reported on scoring methods for individual single-choice items in written examinations including but not limited to medical education. Separately for items with n=2 answer options (eg, alternate-choice items, single true-false items) and best-answer items with n=5 answer options (eg, Type A items) and for each identified scoring method, the metric expected chance score and the expected scoring results as a function of examinees' true knowledge using fictitious examinations with 100 single-choice items were calculated.

resultsA total of 21 different scoring methods were identified from the 258 included sources, with varying consideration of correctly marked, omitted, and incorrectly marked items. Resulting credit varied between -3 and +1 credit points per item. For items with n=2 answer options, expected chance scores from random guessing ranged between -1 and +0.75 credit points. For items with n=5 answer options, expected chance scores ranged between -2.2 and +0.84 credit points. All scoring methods showed a linear relation between examinees' true knowledge and the expected scoring results. Depending on the scoring method used, examination results differed considerably: Expected scoring results from examinees with 50% true knowledge ranged between 0.0% (95% CI 0% to 0%) and 87.5% (95% CI 81.0% to 94.0%) for items with n=2 and between -60.0% (95% CI -60% to -60%) and 92.0% (95% CI 86.7% to 97.3%) for items with n=5.

conclusionsIn examinations with single-choice items, the scoring result is not always equivalent to examinees' true knowledge. When interpreting examination scores and setting pass marks, the number of answer options per item must usually be taken into account in addition to the scoring method used.

Indexed as

alternate-choicebest-answereducationeducational assessmenteducational measurementeducation systemexaminationmultiple choiceresultsscoping reviewscoringscoring systemsingle choicesingle responsetesttestingtrue-falsetrue/falseType A

Identifiers

PMID37001510
PMCPMC10238964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.