ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2026
Improving MCQ quality using a self-evaluation checklist: A quasi-experimental study.
Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To improve the quality of multiple-choice questions created by our faculty using a standardized checklist as an intervention. Method: A pre-post quasi-experimental design was employed involving the faculty of basic medical sciences without a control group, to assess the impact of a self-evaluation checklist as an intervention tool on the quality of MCQs. Faculty members were familiarized with the predesigned checklist in an interactive training session. After the intervention, only self-evaluated MCQs were included. MCQ quality was measured through item analysis before and after the intervention. The Chi-square test was used to assess statistical significance. Results: Using a checklist did not significantly improve MCQs' reliability, with a shift from "low" to "acceptable" internal exam consistency. There was a mixed response to the checklist in terms of the distribution of the difficulty levels of MCQs, with a slight increase in "difficult items" for anatomy and oral biology, a moderate decrease in "easy items" and a slight rise in "good/acceptable items" for physiology, and little to no change for biochemistry. Similarly, the results indicated that using a checklist decreased the discriminative ability of exam items in most subjects. However, a statistically significant improvement was observed in MCQs, with a proportional increase in the number of MCQs featuring "well-functioning distractors," with increases of 26.43%, 12.5%, and 46.66% in the distractor efficiency for anatomy, biochemistry, and oral biology, respectively. Moreover, using a checklist improved the academic performance of students, particularly by reducing the number of students who performed "poorly" across most subjects, and significantly increasing the "good" ratings for anatomy, biochemistry, and oral biology, while more students achieved "satisfactory" in physiology. Conclusion: Using a checklist for MCQ construction improved the quality of MCQs with well-functioning distractors, internal consistency of MCQs in exams, but had less impact on other item analysis parameters.
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.