ArticleCureus2023
The Effect of a One-Day Workshop on the Quality of Framing Multiple Choice Questions in Physiology in a Medical College in India.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric performance and student perceptions of AI- versus student-generated multiple-choice questions: a single-center randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- ItemSight: Development of a Shiny Application for Simplified Item Analysis of Type A Multiple-Choice Questions.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- Factors Associated With the Accuracy of Large Language Models in Basic Medical Science Examinations: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Comment on "Evaluation and Comparison of the Knowledge Levels of Current Artificial Intelligence Programs on Retinal/Vitreous Diseases and Treatment Methods".Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
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 Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used in medical exams for more objectivity in assessment. However, the quality of the questions should be optimum for a proper assessment of the students. A faculty development program (FDP) may improve the quality of MCQs. The effect of a one-day workshop on framing MCQ as a part of a FDP has not been explored in our institution. Aim This study aimed to evaluate the quality of MCQ in the subject of physiology before and after a one-day workshop on framing MCQ as a part of a FDP. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted in the Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, India. A one-day workshop on framing MCQ as a part of a FDP was conducted in March 2022. We took 100 MCQs and responses from the students from examinations conducted before the workshop and 100 MCQs and responses from the students after the workshop. In pre-workshop and post-workshop, the same five faculties framed the questions. Post-validation item analysis including difficulty index (DIFI), discrimination index (DI), distractor effectiveness (DE), and Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) for internal consistency was calculated. Results Pre-workshop and post-workshop quality of the MCQ remain equal in terms of DIFI (chi-square {3} = 2.42, P = 0.29), DI (chi-square {3} = 2.44, P = 0.49), and DE (chi-square {3} = 4.97, P = 0.17). The KR-20 in pre-workshop and post-workshop was 0.65 and 0.87, respectively. Both had acceptable internal consistency. Conclusion The one-day workshop on framing MCQs as a part of a FDP did not have a significant impact on the quality of the MCQs as measured by the three indices of item quality but did improve the internal consistency of the MCQs. Further educational programs and research are required to find out what measures can improve the quality of MCQs.
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.