Strides in Development of Medical Education

Survey on Correct Response Position in Multiple Choice Tests: A Descriptive Study

Document Type : Brief report

Authors

Abdolhussein Shakurnia 1
Hossein Elhampour 2

1 M.Sc. in Immunology, Instructor, Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 M.Sc. in Educational Sciences, Instructor, Department of Educational Sciences, School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract
  Background & Objective: One of the issues of multiple choice tests is preparation of effective distracter options and position of the correct answer among the distractor options The aim of this study was to determine the position of the correct option in multiple choice tests in Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences Iran in 2013   Methods: In this descriptive study 214 exams which were entered into the automated service center of the university were studied in respect to the position of the correct answer Data were analyzed using SPSS software and frequency percentage and chisquare test   Results: In general 14359 multiple choice questions were investigated The position of the correct answer was the A option in 2260 questions (157%) the B option in 3893 question (271%) the C option in 4683 question (326%) and the D option in 3523 questions (246%) Chisquare test showed statistically significant difference between of the correct answer in options of A B C and D (P = 0001) The highest percentage of correct answers was in option C and the lowest percentage of correct answer was in option A The findings of the study also revealed that the percentage of the correct answer in the middle options (B and C) was significantly higher than other options (A and D) (597% V 403% P = 0001)   Conclusion: The results showed that the distribution of correct choices between options of multiple choice tests performed in the university is not suitable Random selection of the correct options is recommended as a suitable approach to avoiding this problem

Keywords

Multiple choice test
Distracter options
Position of correct option
  1. Vyas R, Supe A. Multiple choice questions A literature review on the optimal number of options. Natl Med J India. 2008; 21(3):130-3.
  2. DiBattista D, Kurzawa L. Examination of the Quality of multiple-choice items on classroom tests. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2011; 2(2): 4.
  3. Dehnad A, Nasser H, Hosseini AF. A Comparison between Three-and Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;98: 398 – 403
  4. Haghshenas M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmudi M, Shahbaznejad L, Parvinnejad N, Emadi A. Evaluation of Multiple Choice Questions in the School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, the First Semester of 2007. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2009; 5 (2):120-7. [In Persian]
  5. Shakurnia AH, Mozaffari AR, Khosravi Brougeni A. Survey on Structural of MCQs of residency exam in AJUMS. Jundishapur Sci Med J. 2010; 8(4):492-502. [In Persian]
  6. Price CS, Hughes M. Producing Better Quality MCQs at First Year Level: Are Guidelines and Templates Enough? Alternation. 2011; 18(2): 289 – 316.
  7. Burgos A. Guessing and gambling. Economics Bulletin. 2004; 4(4): 1-10.
  8. Ashraf Pour M, Beheshti Z, Molook Zadeh S. Quality of final examination in students of Babol Medical University (1999-2000). J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2003; 5(Suppl.2): 42-7. [In Persian]
  9. Mortaz Hejri S, Khabaz Mafinezhad M, Jalili M. Guessing in multiple choice questions: challenges and strategies. Iran J Med Educ. 2014; 14(7):594-604. [In Persian]
  10. Attali Y, Bar-Hillele M. Guess Where: The position of correct answers in multiple-choice test items as a psychometric variable. J Educational Measurement. 2003; 40(2):109-28.
  11. McCourbie P. Improving the fairness of multiple choice questions: A literature review. Med Teach. 2004: 26(8): 709-712.
  12. Pourmirza kalhori R, Rezaei M, Karami Matin B, Roshanpour F. A survey of quality and quantity indexes of multiple choice question (MCQ) exams of medical residents at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences:  2008-2012. J  Med Educ Dev. 2014; 8(4):  64-75. [In Persian]
  13. Shakurnia A,  Khosravi  Borojeni  A, Mozaffari  A,  Elhampour  H.  An  Evaluation of Exam  Questions  Designed  by  Faculty Members,  Emphasizing  on  the  Multiple Choice Question Structure, Ahvaz Jundishapur  University  of  Medical  Sciences, 2007.  Strides  Dev  Med  Educ.  2010; 6(2):129-38. [In Persian]
  14. Roediger HL,  Marsh  EJ.  The  positive  and negative  consequences  of  multiple-choice testing.  J  Exp  Psychol  Learn  Mem  Cogn. 2005;31(5):1155-9.
  15. Oluwafemi  AT,  Rufus  Ifedayo  AE.  A  study of  item  response  and  anchor  bias  in economics  objective  tests  among  senior secondary  school  students  in  Osun  State. Academic  Journal  of  Interdisciplinary Studies. 2013;  2(3):173-9.  
  16. Bar-Hillel  M,  Attali  Y.  Seek  whence:  answer sequences  and  their  consequences  in  keybalanced multiple-choice tests. The American Statistician.  2002;  56(4):299-303  
  17. Brady  AM.  Assessment  of  learning  with multiple-choice  questions.  Nurse  Educ  Pract. 2005;  5(4):238-42.
  18. Dickinson  JR.  The  uniformity  of  distractor response  distribution  in  multiple  choice questions. Developments in Business Simulation  and  Experiential  Learning.  2014; 41:306-11.
  19. Dickinson JR.  How  Many  Options  do Multiple-Choice  Questions  Really  Have? Developments  in  Business  Simulation  and Experiential  Learning. 2013;  40:171-5.
  20. Shaw  JI,  Bergen  JE,  Brown  CA,  Gallagher ME.  Centrality  preferences  in  choices  among similar  option.  J  Gen  Psychol.  2000; 127(2):157-64.
  21. Marcus  A.  The  effect  of  correct  response location  on  the  difficulty  level  of  multiplechoice questions. Journal  of  Applied Psychology. 1963;  47(1):  48-51. 
  22. Tarrant  M,  Ware  J,  Mohammed  AM.  An assessment  of  functioning  and  nonfunctioning  distractors  in  multiple-choice questions:  a  descriptive  analysis.  BMC  Med Educ. 2009;  9(40):1-8.
Strides in Development of Medical Education
Volume 12, Issue 2
2015
Pages 426-432

Home

Editorial Policy

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Authors

Peer Review Process

Guide for Reviewers

Publication Ethics Policy

Forms

Suggestion and Complain

FAQ

Contact Us