Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42039672›Full record

Trial reportPerspectives on medical education2026

Reducing the Number of Distractors in Multiple-Choice Questions: A Randomized Study in Undergraduate Medical Education.

Patricia Sunsundegui, Marcos Llorente-Ortega, Felipe Lucena, Nerea Fernández-Ros, Maite Solas, Ana Belén Alcaide, Manuel F Landecho, Jorge Quiroga, Mercedes Iñarrairaegui, José Ignacio Herrero

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Patricia SunsundeguiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4316-4892
Marcos Llorente-OrtegaDepartment of Science, Nuestra Señora del Pilar School, 42001 Soria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6536-1286
Felipe LucenaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4999-6753
Nerea Fernández-RosDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6978-1659
Maite SolasDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7670-3237
Ana Belén AlcaideInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0733-3564
Manuel F LandechoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3234-8805
Jorge QuirogaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2789-6735
Mercedes IñarrairaeguiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9180-4693
José Ignacio HerreroDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9076-6717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in medical education due to their efficiency and scalability. However, the quality of distractors plays a critical role in item validity. Evidence suggests that reducing distractors may enhance psychometric performance without compromising assessment quality. Methods: We conducted a randomized study involving 198 MCQs used in second-year medical exams at the University of Navarra. Each exam included 50 items with two distractors and 50 with three distractors. Items were analyzed for difficulty index, point-biserial coefficient, low-functioning distractors, item-writing flaws, and overall quality (difficulty index 0.45-0.75 and point-biserial > 0.20). In addition, items were classified as either factual recall or clinical case-based to assess the effect of question type. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: No significant differences were found between two- and three-distractor items in terms of difficulty, discrimination, or overall quality. However, items with two distractors presented fewer item-writing flaws (60.2% versus 46%; p = 0.045) and more frequently all their distractors were functional (38.8% versus 18%; p = 0.01). Factual questions were easier and more likely to contain poor distractors, while clinical-case items were more complex and discriminative. Multivariate analyses confirmed that distractor quality, not quantity, was the main factor associated with item performance. Conclusions: Multiple-choice questions with two well-constructed distractors are a valid and efficient alternative to traditional formats. Reducing the number of distractors improves distractor quality and reduces writing flaws, without compromising psychometric standards. These findings support a shift toward more streamlined item formats in medical education assessment.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID42039672
PMCPMC13109911

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.