ArticleBMC medical education2025
Psychometric item/question analysis of multiple-choice questions in fixed prosthodontics exam.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment plays a crucial role in medical education providing both measures of student performance and feedback for curriculum improvement. This study evaluates the quality of A-type (single-best-answer) multiple-choice questions (MCQs) used in the Fixed Prosthodontics exams over three academic years (2020-2022) at a Sudanese dental school, using psychometric item analysis.
methodsThis cross-sectional study (February-April 2023) retrospectively analyzed 155 MCQs administered between 2020 and 2022. Each item was assessed for item-writing flaws (IWFs), difficulty index (DIF: percentage of correct responses), discrimination index (DIS: ability to differentiate between highest and lowest 27% of examinees), and reliability (Cronbach's alpha). The normality of DIF and DIS data was tested; Spearman's or Pearson's correlation was used as appropriate.
resultsThe percentage of items with IWFs was 48% (2020), 42% (2021), and 33% (2022). Mean ± SD of the DIF index values were (75.51 ± 8.47), (72.25 ± 7.93), and (60 ± 11.63). While Mean ± SD of the DIS index values were (0.18 ± 0.17), (0.13 ± 0.16), and (0.21 ± 0.13) respectively. Cronbach's alpha, coefficients (α) increased from 0.69 (2020) and 0.64 (2021) to 0.76 (2022). There were no significant correlations between DIF and DIS across the three years (p > 0.05).
conclusionItem-writing quality improved from 2020 to 2022, with the proportion of flawed items decreasing and reliability increasing. Most items were easy in 2020 and 2021, with more excellent difficulty in 2022. Discrimination improved but remained suboptimal. There was no significant correlation between difficulty and discrimination indices. Routine psychometric analysis and enhanced faculty training are recommended to maintain assessment standards in dental education.
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.