File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-38349164104
- PMID: 18230093
- WOS: WOS:000252588700015
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments
Title | Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Education, nursing/*methods/standards Educational measurement/*methods/standards Educational status |
Issue Date | 2008 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0308-0110 |
Citation | Medical Education, 2008, v. 42 n. 2, p. 198-206 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Context: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used to assess students in health science disciplines. However, few educators have formal instruction in writing MCQs and MCQ items often have item-writing flaws. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of item-writing flaws on student achievement in high-stakes assessments in a nursing programme in an English-language university in Hong Kong. Methods: From a larger sample, we selected 10 summative test papers that were administered to undergraduate nursing students in 1 nursing department. All test items were reviewed for item-writing flaws by a 4-person consensus panel. Items were classified as 'flawed' if they contained ≥ 1 flaw. Items not containing item-writing violations were classified as 'standard'. For each paper, 2 separate scales were computed: a total scale which reflected the characteristics of the assessment as administered and a standard scale which reflected the characteristics of a hypothetical assessment including only unflawed items. Results: The proportion of flawed items on the 10 test papers ranged from 28-75%; 47.3% of all items were flawed. Fewer examinees passed the standard scale than the total scale (748 [90.6%] versus 779 [94.3%]). Conversely, the proportion of examinees obtaining a score ≥ 80% was higher on the standard scale than the total scale (173 [20.9%] versus 120 [14.5%]). Conclusions: Flawed MCQ items were common in high-stakes nursing assessments but did not disadvantage borderline students, as has been previously demonstrated. Conversely, high-achieving students were more likely than borderline students to be penalised by flawed items. © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/178292 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.446 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Tarrant, M | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ware, J | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-12-19T09:45:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-12-19T09:45:04Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Education, 2008, v. 42 n. 2, p. 198-206 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0308-0110 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/178292 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Context: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used to assess students in health science disciplines. However, few educators have formal instruction in writing MCQs and MCQ items often have item-writing flaws. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of item-writing flaws on student achievement in high-stakes assessments in a nursing programme in an English-language university in Hong Kong. Methods: From a larger sample, we selected 10 summative test papers that were administered to undergraduate nursing students in 1 nursing department. All test items were reviewed for item-writing flaws by a 4-person consensus panel. Items were classified as 'flawed' if they contained ≥ 1 flaw. Items not containing item-writing violations were classified as 'standard'. For each paper, 2 separate scales were computed: a total scale which reflected the characteristics of the assessment as administered and a standard scale which reflected the characteristics of a hypothetical assessment including only unflawed items. Results: The proportion of flawed items on the 10 test papers ranged from 28-75%; 47.3% of all items were flawed. Fewer examinees passed the standard scale than the total scale (748 [90.6%] versus 779 [94.3%]). Conversely, the proportion of examinees obtaining a score ≥ 80% was higher on the standard scale than the total scale (173 [20.9%] versus 120 [14.5%]). Conclusions: Flawed MCQ items were common in high-stakes nursing assessments but did not disadvantage borderline students, as has been previously demonstrated. Conversely, high-achieving students were more likely than borderline students to be penalised by flawed items. © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0308-0110 | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Education | en_US |
dc.rights | Medical Education. Copyright © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. | - |
dc.subject | Education, nursing/*methods/standards | - |
dc.subject | Educational measurement/*methods/standards | - |
dc.subject | Educational status | - |
dc.subject.mesh | Choice Behavior | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Education, Nursing - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Educational Measurement - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Educational Status | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Hong Kong | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Teaching - Methods | en_US |
dc.title | Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Tarrant, M: tarrantm@hkucc.hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Tarrant, M=rp00461 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 18230093 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-38349164104 | en_US |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 141451 | - |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-38349164104&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 42 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 198 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 206 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000252588700015 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tarrant, M=7004340118 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Ware, J=35308222100 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citeulike | 2311170 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0308-0110 | - |