ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Psychometric Evaluation of Forensic Medicine Multiple-Choice Questions: An Item Analysis From a Nepali Medical College.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.