File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-77954539661
- PMID: 20053488
- WOS: WOS:000280627000009
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments
Title | A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authors | |||||
Keywords | Assessment Distractors Item analysis Item discrimination Multiple-choice questions Multiple-choice tests Number of choices per item Test construction | ||||
Issue Date | 2010 | ||||
Publisher | Churchill 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? | ||||
Abstract | In 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134855 | ||||
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 3.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.091 | ||||
ISI Accession Number ID |
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 Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Tarrant, M | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Ware, J | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-07-22T04:11:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-07-22T04:11:16Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Nurse Education Today, 2010, v. 30 n. 6, p. 539-543 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 0260-6917 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134855 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Churchill Livingstone. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/nedt | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Nurse Education Today | en_HK |
dc.rights | NOTICE: 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.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Assessment | en_HK |
dc.subject | Distractors | en_HK |
dc.subject | Item analysis | en_HK |
dc.subject | Item discrimination | en_HK |
dc.subject | Multiple-choice questions | en_HK |
dc.subject | Multiple-choice tests | en_HK |
dc.subject | Number of choices per item | en_HK |
dc.subject | Test construction | en_HK |
dc.title | A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.openurl | http://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.email | Tarrant, M: tarrantm@hkucc.hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Tarrant, M=rp00461 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | postprint | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.pmid | 20053488 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-77954539661 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 172958 | - |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77954539661&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_HK |
dc.identifier.volume | 30 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.spage | 539 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 543 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000280627000009 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tarrant, M=7004340118 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Ware, J=35308222100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0260-6917 | - |