ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Effective use of Item Analysis to improve the Reliability and Validity of Undergraduate Medical Examinations: Evaluating the same exam over many years: a different approach.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: MCQ exams are part of end-module assessments in undergraduate medical institutions. Item Analysis (IA) is the best tool to check their reliability and validity. It provides the Reliability Coefficient KR20, Difficulty Index (DI), Discrimination Index (DISC), and Distractor Efficiency (DE). Almost all research papers on IA are based on single exam analysis. We examined the IA of multiple exams of the same module, taken in four years. We aimed to explore the required consistency over the years and the effectiveness of IA-based post-exam measures. Methodology: Item Analysis of eight final MCQ exams of the Pediatric module from 2020-21 to 2023-24, at the Faculty of Medicine in Rabigh, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, were included in the study. Results: All exams had KR20 of 90 and above indicating excellent reliability. Difficulty levels were consistent except for a single year. Discriminative ability was maintained over the years. Only 28 out of 800 MCQs had a negative DISC. All exams maintained good DE. Only 15 MCQs over four years had zero DE. The practice of reviewing all Non-Functional Distractors yielded a gradual improvement in exam quality. Conclusion: Besides the IA of individual exams, it is also recommended that IA of the same exam be evaluated over 4-5 years to see consistency and trends towards improvement. It helps in improving the reliability and validity by addressing deficiencies and deviations from the recommended standards.
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.