Analysis of Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency in Multiple Choice Questions

Main Article Content

Sahar M. Yakout
Khulud Hadi
Modhi Alolayan
Moadeyah Mohammed Alasmari
Kholoud Mohammed Alhaji
Latifah M. Alobaid
Maha Abdulaziz Alonazi
Mohammad K. Alharbi, Phd, Rn

Abstract

Background: The item analysis of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is an essential tool that can provide input on validity and reliability of items. It helps to identify items, which can be revised or discarded, thus building a quality MCQ bank.


Aim: The aim of the study to evaluate the quality of MCQs by analyzing DIF, DI and DE and to find out the association of MCQs having good difficulty and discrimination indices with DE.


Method: The study was conducted in the Department of Maternity and Child Health Nursing at the College of Nursing during the academic year 2023, second semester. Students of level six who took the final exam of one-course second-semester academic year 2023, A total of 152 third-year Bachelor of Nursing. The item analysis explored the difficulty index (DIF I) and discrimination index (DI) with distractor effectiveness (DE). Data was kept confidential and the descriptive and inferential statistics will be computed using SPSS 22.0.


Results: A total of 50 MCQs, the majority, that is, 74 (82%) MCQs had a good/acceptable level of difficulty with a mean DIF I of 94.94 ± 6.36 (mean ± SD); this indicates that, on average, the MCQs were relatively easy for the students, as the difficulty index is close to 100. The discrimination index, which assesses the ability of the MCQs to differentiate between high and low-performing students, had a mean of 0.11 and a standard deviation of 0.47. This relatively low mean value suggests that the MCQs had limited discriminatory power, meaning they did not effectively distinguish between students with different levels of performance. 150 (75%) were categorized as functional distractors (FDs). These FDs effectively served their purpose by distracting students from selecting the correct answer, challenging their knowledge and understanding. On the other hand, 50 distractors (25%) were classified as non-functional distractors (NFDs).


Conclusion: The categorization of the MCQs based on distractor efficiency highlights the importance of having well-constructed and effective distractors. The presence of functional distractors challenges students' decision-making, while non-functional distractors need to be revised or replaced to improve the overall quality of the MCQs. This finding indicates a potential area for improvement in the construction and selection of MCQs to enhance their ability to differentiate student abilities

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sahar M. Yakout, Khulud Hadi, Modhi Alolayan, Moadeyah Mohammed Alasmari, Kholoud Mohammed Alhaji, Latifah M. Alobaid, Maha Abdulaziz Alonazi, & Mohammad K. Alharbi, Phd, Rn. (2024). Analysis of Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency in Multiple Choice Questions. Journal of Advanced Zoology, 45(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.53555/jaz.v45i3.4138
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Sahar M. Yakout

Assistant Professor, Maternal And Child Health Nursing Department, College Of Nursing, King Saud University, Riyadh, 12372, Saudi Arabia, (B) Assistant Professor, Faculty Of Nursing, Alexandria University, Egypt

Khulud Hadi

Lecturer, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

Modhi Alolayan

Teaching Assistant, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

Moadeyah Mohammed Alasmari

Lecturer, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

Kholoud Mohammed Alhaji

Lecturer, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

Latifah M. Alobaid

Teaching Assistant, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

Maha Abdulaziz Alonazi

Lecturer, Nursing College, King Saud University

Mohammad K. Alharbi, Phd, Rn

Assistant Professor, Department Of Nursing Administration and Education, College Of Nursing, King Saud University

References

Alaklabi, N. M., Jradi, H., & Shahbal, S. (2023). EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND PRACTICE FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACADEMICIANS, POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS, AND ALUMNI IN SAUDI ARABIA. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 30(17), 551-568.

Al-Kubaisi, H., & Shahbal, S. (2021). The Focus of Educational Leadership on Student Learning; Reflection and Assessment-Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education. Webology (ISSN: 1735-188X), 18(3).

Bhat SK, Prasad KHL. Item analysis and optimizing multiple-choice questions for a viable question bank in ophthalmology: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb;69(2):343-346. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1610_20. PMID: 33463588; PMCID: PMC7933874.

Boland, R. J., Lester, N. A., & Williams, E. (2010). Writing multiple-choice questions. Academic Psychiatry, 34, 310-316.

Burud, I., Nagandla, K., & Agarwal, P. (2019). Impact of distractors in item analysis of multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 7 (4), 1136-1139.

Burud, I., Nagandla, K., & Agarwal, P. (2019). Impact of distractors in item analysis of multiple choice questions. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 7(4), 1136-1139

Elgadal, Amani & Mariod, Abdalbasit. (2021). Item Analysis of Multiple-choice Questions (MCQs): Assessment Tool For Quality Assurance Measures. Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences. 16. 10.18502/sjms.v16i3.9695.

Ingale AS, Giri PA, Doibale MK (2019). Study on item and test analysis of multiple choice questions amongst undergraduate medical students. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health. 2019;4(5):1562-5.

Jannah, R., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Khasbani, I. (2021). An item analysis on multiple-choice questions: a case of a junior high school English try-out test in Indonesia. Leksika: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra dan Pengajarannya, 15(1), 9-17.‏

Juliana D'Sa and Maria Liza (2017) Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions: Item Difficulty, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency. International Journal of Nursing Education.

Kaipa, R. M. (2021). Multiple choice questions and essay questions in curriculum. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(1), 16-32.

Kheyami, D., Jaradat, A., Al-Shibani, T., & Ali, F. A. (2018). Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions at the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain. Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 18(1), e68–e74.https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2018.18.01.011

Kumar D, Jaipurkar R, Shekhar A, Sikri G, Srinivas V. Item analysis of multiple choice questions: A quality assurance test for an assessment tool. Med J Armed Forces India. 2021 Feb;77(Suppl 1):S85-S89. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.11.007. Epub 2021 Feb 2. PMID: 33612937; PMCID: PMC7873707.

Loh KY, Elsayed I, Nurjahan M, Roland G(2018). Item difficulty and discrimination index in single best answer MCQ: end of semester examinations at Taylor’s clinical school. Redesigning learning for greater social impact: Springer; 2018. p. 167-71.

Lok Raj, Sharma (2020)Analysis of Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency of Multiple Choice Questions of Speech Sounds of English. International Research Journal of MMC (IRJMMC), Vol. 2, Issue 1.

Maharani, A. V., & Putro, N. H. P. S. (2020). Item analysis of English final semester test. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 5(2), 2020

Patil R, Palve SB, Vell K, Boratne AV (2017). Evaluation of multiple choice questions by item analysis in a medical college at Pondicherry, India. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health. 2017;3(6):1612-6.

Rao, C., Kishan Prasad, HL., Sajitha, K., Permi, H., & Shetty J. (2019). Item analysis of multiple choice questions: Assessing an assessment tool in medical students. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches, 2 (4), 201-204.

Shahid, R., Farooq, Q., & Iqbal, R. (2019). Item analysis of multiple choice questions of ophthalmology at Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Rawal Medical Journal, 44(1), 192-192.‏

Sharma, L. R. (2021). Analysis of difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency of multiple choice questions of speech sounds of English. International Research Journal of MMC (IRJMMC), 2(1), 15-28.‏

Stringer, J. K., Santen, S. A., Lee, E., Rawls, M., Bailey, J., Richards, A., ... & Biskobing, D. (2021). Examining Bloom’s taxonomy in multiple choice questions: students’ approach to questions. Medical Science Educator, 31(4), 1311-1317.