ArticleCureus2026
Analyzing Test Items Using Difficulty Index and Discrimination Index for Evaluating Postgraduate Medical Residents.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to analyze objective questions used to evaluate Phase B residents in the Basics of Medical Education course in Bangladesh, focusing on standardizing test questions and identifying areas for improvement based on Difficulty Index (DIF I) and Discrimination Index (DI). Methodology In November 2022, 148 Phase B residents were examined by an internal assessment on the Basics of Medical Education. The assessment comprised 50 objective questions, including true/false (T/F) statements and fill-in-the-gap exercises. Each correct answer received one mark. Following the assessment, item analysis was performed for validation, with data analysis conducted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). Results Out of 30 T/F statements, 40% were considered good/acceptable, with a mean DIF I of 76.17 and a standard deviation (SD) of 20.42; 60% were considered too easy. The overall mean (SD) DI for all T/F statements was 0.18 (0.13), with half displaying acceptable to excellent discriminatory capacity. For the 20 fill-in-the-blank statements, 40% were considered acceptable, with a mean (SD) DIF I of 64.80 (20.70) and a DI of 0.32 (0.18), indicating that 75% of these items had a good to excellent quality level. Conclusion Fill-in-the-blank statements demonstrated exceptional discriminatory capabilities, but half of the T/F statements require significant refinement to enhance their quality.
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.