Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Instrumentation
2.2. Sample
2.3. Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Peile, E. Knowing and knowing about. BMJ 2006, 332, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCoubrie, P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: A literature review. Med. Teach. 2004, 26, 709–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Der Vleuten, C.P. The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 1996, 1, 41–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dickinson, J.R. How many options do multiple-choice questions really have? Dev. Bus. Simul. Exp. Learn. 2013, 40, 171–175. [Google Scholar]
- Cizek, G.J.; Robinson, L.K.; O’Day, D.M. Non-functioning options: A closer look. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiBattista, D.; Kurzawa, L. Examination of the quality of multiple-choice items on classroom tests. Can. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2011, 2, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haladyna, T.M.; Downing, S.M. A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl. Meas. Educ. 1989, 2, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadeghi, K.; Masoumi, G.A. Does number of options in multiple choice tests affect item facility and discrimination? An examination of test-taker preferences. J. Engl. Lang. Teach. Learn. 2017, 19, 123–143. [Google Scholar]
- Shizuka, T.; Takeuchi, O.; Yashima, T.; Yoshizawa, K. A comparison of three- and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan. Lang. Test. 2006, 23, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarrant, M.; Ware, J. A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. Nurse Educ. Today 2010, 30, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vyas, R.; Supe, A. Multiple choice questions: A literature review on the optimal number of options. Natl. Med. J. India 2008, 21, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Landrum, R.E.; Cashin, J.R.; Theis, K.S. More evidence in favor of three-option multiple choice tests. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1993, 53, 771–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, M.C. Three options are optimal for multiple choice items: A meta analysis of 80 years of research. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2005, 24, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royal, K.D. Robust (and ethical) education research designs. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2018, 45, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deepak, K.K.; Al-Umran, K.U.; AI-Sheikh, M.H.; Dkoli, B.V.; Al-Rubaish, A. Psychometrics of multiple choice questions with non-functioning distracters: Implications to medical education. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2015, 59, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dehnad, A.; Nasser, H.; Hosseini, A.F. A comparison between three-and four-option multiple choice questions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 98, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vegada, B.; Shukla, A.; Khilnani, A.; Charan, J.; Desai, C. Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study. Indian J. Pharmacol. 2016, 48, 571–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Redmond, S.P.; Hartigan-Rogers, J.A.; Cobbett, S. High time for a change: Psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2012, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tarrant, M.; Ware, J.; Mohammed, A.M. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: A descriptive analysis. BMC Med. Educ. 2009, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tarrant, M.; Ware, J. A framework for improving the quality of multiple-choice assessments. Nurse Educ. 2012, 37, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, W. Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. Br. J. Psychol. 1910, 3, 296–322. [Google Scholar]
- Spearman, C. Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br. J. Psychol. 1910, 3, 271–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royal, K.D.; Stockdale, M.R. The impact of 3-option responses to multiple-choice questions on guessing strategies and cut score determinations. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2017, 5, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Messick, S. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning. Am. Psychol. 1995, 50, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Form A | Form B | p-Value Δ (Absolute) | DI Δ (Absolute) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# Options | p-Value | DI | # Options | p-Value | DI | |||
1 | 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
2 | 4 | 0.94 | 1.05 | 3 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.11 |
3 | 4 | 0.71 | 1.21 | 3 | 0.74 | 1.17 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
4 | 4 | 0.92 | 1.01 | 3 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
5 | 4 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
6 | 4 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 3 | 0.94 | 1.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
7 | 4 | 0.90 | 0.97 | 3 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
8 | 4 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.09 | 0.03 |
9 | 4 | 0.75 | 0.97 | 3 | 0.87 | 1.04 | 0.12 | 0.07 |
10 | 4 | 0.91 | 1.02 | 3 | 0.90 | 1.08 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
11 | 4 | 0.96 | 1.03 | 3 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
12 | 4 | 0.53 | 1.19 | 3 | 0.42 | 0.60 | 0.11 | 0.59 |
13 | 4 | 0.46 | 1.40 | 3 | 0.79 | 1.08 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
14 | 4 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
15 | 4 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 3 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.07 |
16 | 4 | 0.60 | 1.18 | 3 | 0.82 | 1.02 | 0.23 | 0.16 |
17 | 3 | 0.87 | 0.98 | 4 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
18 | 3 | 0.91 | 1.05 | 4 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
19 | 3 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 4 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.03 | 0.06 |
20 | 3 | 0.93 | 1.07 | 4 | 0.86 | 1.14 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
21 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 4 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.04 | 0.14 |
22 | 3 | 0.87 | 0.97 | 4 | 0.86 | 1.04 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
23 | 3 | 0.69 | 1.26 | 4 | 0.67 | 1.35 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
24 | 3 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 4 | 0.97 | 1.02 | 0.03 | 0.07 |
25 | 3 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 4 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.03 | 0.06 |
26 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.07 | 4 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
27 | 3 | 0.75 | 1.10 | 4 | 0.75 | 1.17 | 0.00 | 0.07 |
28 | 3 | 0.47 | 0.75 | 4 | 0.57 | 0.89 | 0.10 | 0.14 |
29 | 3 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.90 | 1.07 | 0.05 | 0.07 |
30 | 3 | 0.56 | 1.43 | 4 | 0.55 | 0.98 | 0.01 | 0.45 |
Item | Form A | Form B | p-Value Δ (Absolute) | DI Δ (Absolute) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# Options | p-Value | DI | # Options | p-Value | DI | |||
1 | 4 | 0.96 | 1.11 | 3 | 0.96 | 1.06 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
2 | 4 | 0.77 | 0.85 | 3 | 0.73 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.12 |
3 | 4 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 3 | 0.96 | 0.86 | 0.01 | 0.11 |
4 | 4 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.09 | 0.00 | 0.13 |
5 | 4 | 0.99 | 1.07 | 3 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
6 | 4 | 0.91 | 1.06 | 3 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
7 | 4 | 0.87 | 1.14 | 3 | 0.86 | 1.01 | 0.00 | 0.13 |
8 | 4 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 3 | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
9 | 4 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 3 | 0.81 | 0.96 | 0.06 | 0.19 |
10 | 4 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
11 | 4 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 3 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 |
12 | 4 | 0.80 | 1.33 | 3 | 0.74 | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.43 |
13 | 4 | 0.94 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
14 | 4 | 0.97 | 1.10 | 3 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
15 | 4 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 3 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
16 | 4 | 0.91 | 1.04 | 3 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
17 | 4 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 3 | 0.95 | 1.08 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
18 | 4 | 0.77 | 0.86 | 3 | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
19 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
20 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.95 | 1.08 | 0.05 | 0.08 |
21 | 3 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 4 | 0.74 | 0.87 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
22 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 0.04 | 0.10 |
23 | 3 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 4 | 0.82 | 1.05 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
24 | 3 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 4 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
25 | 3 | 0.64 | 1.50 | 4 | 0.58 | 1.09 | 0.05 | 0.41 |
26 | 3 | 0.84 | 1.11 | 4 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
27 | 3 | 0.88 | 0.81 | 4 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 0.13 |
28 | 3 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 4 | 0.97 | 1.08 | 0.02 | 0.15 |
29 | 3 | 0.92 | 1.10 | 4 | 0.89 | 1.23 | 0.03 | 0.13 |
30 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
31 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 0.06 |
32 | 3 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 4 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.01 | 0.20 |
33 | 3 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 4 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
34 | 3 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
35 | 3 | 0.67 | 0.53 | 4 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 0.15 |
36 | 3 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 4 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Royal, K.; Dorman, D. Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5020055
Royal K, Dorman D. Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course. Veterinary Sciences. 2018; 5(2):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5020055
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoyal, Kenneth, and David Dorman. 2018. "Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course" Veterinary Sciences 5, no. 2: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5020055
APA StyleRoyal, K., & Dorman, D. (2018). Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course. Veterinary Sciences, 5(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5020055