Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38658912›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.

Assad Ali Rezigalla, Ali Mohammed Elhassan Seid Ahmed Eleragi, Amar Babikir Elhussein, Jaber Alfaifi, Mushabab A ALGhamdi, Ahmed Y Al Ameer, Amar Ibrahim Omer Yahia, Osama A Mohammed, Masoud Ishag Elkhalifa Adam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Assad Ali RezigallaDepartment of Anatomy, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia. assadkafe@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9693-9586
Ali Mohammed Elhassan Seid Ahmed EleragiDepartment of Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6475-6382
Amar Babikir ElhusseinDepartment of Biochemistry College of Medicine, Nile University, Khartoum, Sudan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5509-066X
Jaber AlfaifiDepartment of Child Health, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4507-3970
Mushabab A ALGhamdiDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8675-5871
Ahmed Y Al AmeerDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-3266
Amar Ibrahim Omer YahiaDepartment of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1395-7691
Osama A MohammedDepartment of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9712-9609
Masoud Ishag Elkhalifa AdamDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Bisha, 61922, Bisha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-8307-7379

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Educational MeasurementPsychometricsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleAnalysisCorrelationDiscrimination indexDistractor efficiencyItemsPsychometricSifficulty index

Identifiers

PMID38658912
PMCPMC11040895

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.