ArticleBMC medical education2024
Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Less is more? A systematic review and network meta-analysis on MCQ option numbers.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Psychometric performance and student perceptions of AI- versus student-generated multiple-choice questions: a single-center randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- From image to clinical judgment: a randomized near-peer teaching trial on systematic chest radiograph interpretation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Comparative analysis of short answer questions and multiple-choice questions in formative assessment of first-year medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Analyzing Test Items Using Difficulty Index and Discrimination Index for Evaluating Postgraduate Medical Residents.Cureus · 2026Article
- Item analysis and performance of EMQ, MCQ, and SAQ in dental education and students' perception of extended-matching questions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- ItemSight: Development of a Shiny Application for Simplified Item Analysis of Type A Multiple-Choice Questions.Cureus · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of Pharmacology Concept Inventory for Concept-Based Learning: Leveraging Theory, Expert Insights, and Student Perspectives.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Fine-Tuned Large Language Models for Generating Multiple-Choice Questions in Anesthesiology: Psychometric Comparison With Faculty-Written Items.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the current geriatric Institutional assessment profile: a tool for age-friendly care evaluation.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Detection of flawed multiple-choice questions in preclinical medical education using item difficulty and discrimination indices: a six-year analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of the Evaluating Attitudes, Training and Skills in Dysphagia Care (EATS) Questionnaire Among Nursing Home Nurses in Singapore.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- System-based comparison of the knowledge level of popular AI chatbots on human anatomy: a multiple-choice exam analysis of GPT-4.1, DeepSeek, Co-Pilot, and Gemini models.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity testing the Chinese version of the nursing surveillance scale: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of AI-generated and clinician-designed multiple-choice questions in emergency medicine exam: a psychometric analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Use of artificial intelligence-generated multiple-choice questions for the examination of surgical subspecialty residents Report of feasibility and psychometric analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Investigating assessment standards and fixed passing marks in dental undergraduate finals: a mixed-methods approach.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Can a large language model create acceptable dental board-style examination questions? A cross-sectional prospective study.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistractor efficiency (DE) of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) responses is a component of the psychometric analysis used by the examiners to evaluate the distractors' credibility and functionality. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the DE on the difficulty and discrimination indices.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June 2023. It utilizes the final exam of the Principles of Diseases Course with 45 s-year students. The exam consisted of 60 type A MCQs. Item analysis (IA) was generated to evaluate KR20, difficulty index (DIF), discrimination index (DIS), and distractor efficiency (DE). DIF was calculated as the percentage of examinees who scored the item correctly. DIS is an item's ability to discriminate between higher and lower 27% of examinees. For DE, any distractor selected by less than 5% is considered nonfunctional, and items were classified according to the non-functional distractors. The correlation and significance of variance between DIF, DI, and DE were evaluated.
resultsThe total number of examinees was 45. The KR-20 of the exam was 0.91. The mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) of the DIF of the exam was 37.5(19.1), and the majority (69.5%) were of acceptable difficulty. The M (SD) of the DIS was 0.46 (0.22), which is excellent. Most items were excellent in discrimination (69.5%), only two were not discriminating (13.6%), and the rest were of acceptable power (16.9%). Items with excellent and good efficiency represent 37.3% each, while only 3.4% were of poor efficiency. The correlation between DE and DIF (p = 0.000, r= -0.548) indicates that items with efficient distractors (low number of NFD) are associated with those having a low difficulty index (difficult items) and vice versa. The correlation between DE and DIS is significantly negative (P = 0.0476, r=-0.259). In such a correlation, items with efficient distractors are associated with low-discriminating items.
conclusionsThere is a significant moderate negative correlation between DE and DIF (P = 0.00, r = -0.548) and a significant weak negative correlation between DE and DIS (P = 0.0476, r = -0.259). DIF has a non-significant negative correlation with DIS (P = 0.7124, r = -0.0492). DE impacts both DIF and DIS. Items with efficient distractors (low number of NFD) are associated with those having a low difficulty index (difficult items) and discriminating items. Improving the quality of DE will decrease the number of NFDs and result in items with acceptable levels of difficulty index and discrimination power.
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.