Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42542740›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development

Psychometric Evaluation of Forensic Medicine Multiple-Choice Questions: An Item Analysis From a Nepali Medical College.

Alok Atreya, Devi Ram Acharya, Samata Nepal, Laxmi Prasad Sapkota, Ritesh G Menezes, Bal Chandra Luitel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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

6 authors.

Alok AtreyaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Lumbini Medical College, Palpa, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6657-7871
Devi Ram AcharyaDepartment of STEAM Education, Kathmandu University School of Education, Lalitpur, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7295-6699
Samata NepalDepartment of Community Medicine, Lumbini Medical College, Palpa, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-4510
Laxmi Prasad SapkotaDepartment of Community Medicine, Lumbini Medical College, Palpa, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9811-3879
Ritesh G MenezesForensic Medicine Division, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-4161
Bal Chandra LuitelDepartment of STEAM Education, Kathmandu University School of Education, Lalitpur, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-2385

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are test items that are essential to assess the competency of medical students in forensic medicine. However, the psychometric quality of these test items in Nepali medical colleges remains largely unexplored. This study evaluated the difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor effectiveness of forensic medicine MCQs to identify areas requiring improvement. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 30 MCQs from the end-of-semester forensic medicine examination which was administered to 100 third-year medical students. The item difficulty, the discrimination index (via Kelley's 27% method), and performance of the distractor were calculated for each question. Results: The students showed high performance, with a mean score of 23.25±3.61 out of 30. Difficulty analysis showed that majority of the items (60%) fell within an acceptable difficulty range (70-90% correct), while 16.7% were very easy and 6.6% were difficult. Discrimination was good in 43.3% of the items, moderate in 23.3%, and poor in 33.3%. Distractor analysis identified non-functional distractors in a large proportion of items, including nine items (30%) with at least one zero-response option. Overall, 44 of 90 distractors (48.9%) across all items were non-functional. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between item difficulty and discrimination index (ρ = -0.4265, p = 0.019); items of moderate difficulty (50-69% correct) showed the highest mean discrimination, with both moderate- and acceptable-difficulty items outperforming items at the extremes of difficulty. Conclusions: The examination revealed adequate student performance; however, item quality analysis demonstrated the need for improvement, with approximately one-third of the items failing to meet the desired standard and therefore requiring revision due to poor discrimination or non-functional distractors. Structured faculty training in item-writing principles and regular psychometric evaluation may help improve assessment quality in Nepali medical education.

Indexed as

assessmentforensic medicineitem analysismedical educationmultiple-choice questionsNepal

Identifiers

PMID42542740
PMCPMC13428155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.