Trial reportPerspectives on medical education2026
Reducing the Number of Distractors in Multiple-Choice Questions: A Randomized Study in Undergraduate Medical Education.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.