File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments

TitleA comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments
Authors
KeywordsAssessment
Distractors
Item analysis
Item discrimination
Multiple-choice questions
Multiple-choice tests
Number of choices per item
Test construction
Issue Date2010
PublisherChurchill Livingstone. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/nedt
Citation
Nurse Education Today, 2010, v. 30 n. 6, p. 539-543 How to Cite?
AbstractIn multiple-choice tests, four-option items are the standard in nursing education. There are few evidence-based reasons, however, for MCQs to have four or more options as studies have shown that three-option items perform equally as well and the additional options most often do not improve test reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the psychometric properties of four-option items with the same items rewritten as three-option items. Using item-analysis data to eliminate the distractor with the lowest response rate, we compared three- and four-option versions of 41 multiple-choice items administered to two student cohorts over two subsequent academic years. Removing the non-functioning distractor resulted in minimal changes in item difficulty and discrimination. Three-option items contained more functioning distractors despite having fewer distractors overall. Existing distractors became more discriminating when infrequently selected distractors were removed from items. Overall, three-option items perform equally as well as four-option items. Since three-option items require less time to develop and administer and additional options provide no psychometric advantage, teachers are encouraged to adopt three-option items as the standard on multiple-choice tests. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134855
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.591
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.958
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
University of Hong Kong
Funding Information:

Financial support for this study was provided by the Leung Kau Kui/Run Run Shaw Research and Teaching Endowment Fund, the University of Hong Kong

References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTarrant, Men_HK
dc.contributor.authorWare, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-07-22T04:11:16Z-
dc.date.available2011-07-22T04:11:16Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationNurse Education Today, 2010, v. 30 n. 6, p. 539-543en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0260-6917en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134855-
dc.description.abstractIn multiple-choice tests, four-option items are the standard in nursing education. There are few evidence-based reasons, however, for MCQs to have four or more options as studies have shown that three-option items perform equally as well and the additional options most often do not improve test reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the psychometric properties of four-option items with the same items rewritten as three-option items. Using item-analysis data to eliminate the distractor with the lowest response rate, we compared three- and four-option versions of 41 multiple-choice items administered to two student cohorts over two subsequent academic years. Removing the non-functioning distractor resulted in minimal changes in item difficulty and discrimination. Three-option items contained more functioning distractors despite having fewer distractors overall. Existing distractors became more discriminating when infrequently selected distractors were removed from items. Overall, three-option items perform equally as well as four-option items. Since three-option items require less time to develop and administer and additional options provide no psychometric advantage, teachers are encouraged to adopt three-option items as the standard on multiple-choice tests. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/nedten_HK
dc.relation.ispartofNurse Education Todayen_HK
dc.rightsNOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Nurse Education Today. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Nurse Education Today, 2010, v. 30 n. 6, p. 539-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectAssessmenten_HK
dc.subjectDistractorsen_HK
dc.subjectItem analysisen_HK
dc.subjectItem discriminationen_HK
dc.subjectMultiple-choice questionsen_HK
dc.subjectMultiple-choice testsen_HK
dc.subjectNumber of choices per itemen_HK
dc.subjectTest constructionen_HK
dc.titleA comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessmentsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0260-6917&volume=30&issue=6&spage=539&epage=543&date=2010&atitle=A+comparison+of+the+psychometric+properties+of+three-and+four-option+multiple-choice+questions+in+nursing+assessments-
dc.identifier.emailTarrant, M: tarrantm@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityTarrant, M=rp00461en_HK
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid20053488-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77954539661en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros172958-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77954539661&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume30en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage539en_HK
dc.identifier.epage543en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000280627000009-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTarrant, M=7004340118en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWare, J=35308222100en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats