Analysis of Multiple-Choice Questions In Musculoskeletal Module At orthopaedics and Traumatology Division, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Faculty of Medicine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51601/ijhp.v6i3.716Abstract
Background : Multiple choice question are a form of assessment to measure student competence. The quality of the multiple choice items can be determined using the parameters of the difficulty item, discrimination index, and distractor efficiency. Objective: To carry out item analysis of MCQs and the association between distractor efficiency with difficulty index and discrimination index in Musculoskeletal Module at Orthopaedic and Traumatology Division, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Faculty of Medicine, Jakarta, in 2018 - 2019. Methods: Observational analytic study with cross sectional design. Total samples analyzed were 155 items with 620 distractors. Results: The difficulty index showed 12 (7.75%) difficult items, 52 (33,55%) moderate items, and 91 (58,7%) easy items. Out of 155 items, 89 items (57.4%) were good questions and 66 items (42.6%) were poor questions, based on discrimination index. Eight items (5.2%) had high distractor efficiency, whereas the distractor efficiency of 73 items (47.1%), and 74 items (47.7%) were moderate and low, respectively. The functional distractors were 247 (39.8%) and non functional distractors were 373 (60.2%). There was a significant association between the distractor efficiency with difficulty index and discrimination index (p <0.05). Conclusion: There was a considerable number of nonideal items based on the difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor effectiveness. The distractor efficiency was significantly associated with the difficulty index and discrimination index (p <0,05).
Downloads
References
[1] Gronlund NE, Waugh CK. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: McMillan Publishing; 2009. h. 1–10.
[2] Amin Z, Seng CY, Eng KH. Practical Guide to Medical Student Assessment. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing; 2006. h. 22–24.
[3] Lynch DC, Swing ST. Key Considerations for Selecting Assessment Instruments and Implementing Assessment Systems. Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Educa-tion (ACGME). Available on: http://www.acgme.org/outcome/assess/keyConsider.asp
[4] Shumway JM, Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 25: The Assessment of Learning Outcome for the Competent and Reflective Physician. Medical Teacher. 2003;25(6):578–581.
[5] Mukherjee P, Lahiri SK. Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs): Item and Test Statistics from an Assessment in a Medical College of Kolkata, West Bengal. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2015;14(12):47–52.
[6] Purwoko M, Mundijo M, T T. Evaluating the Use of MCQ as an Assessment Method in a Medical School for Assessing Medical Students in the Competence-Based Curriculum. The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education. 2018;7(1):44–48.
[7] Rao C, Prasad K, Sajitha K, Harish P, Shetty J. Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Ques-tions: Assessing an Assessment Tool in Medical Students. International Journal of Ed-ucational and Psychological Researches. 2016;2(4):201–204. Available on: http://www.ijeprjournal.org
[8] Arifin Z. Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya; 2017. h. 2, 266–283.
[9] Burud I, Nagandla K, Agarwal P. Impact of Distractors in Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2019;7(4):1136–1139.
[10] Adams N. Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Objectives. Journal of the Medi-cal Library Association. 2015;103(3):152–153.
[11] Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and As-sessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group; 2013.
[12] Abdalla ME, Gaffar AM, Sulaiman RA. Constructing A-Type Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs): Step by Step Manual. United Arab Emirates; 2011. h. 15–22.
[13] Arifin Z. Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya; 2017. h. 2, 266–283.
[14] Kheyami D, Jaradat A, Al-Syihbani T, Ali FA. Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Ques-tions at the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain. Sul-tan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2018;18(1):67–74. Available on: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5892816/
[15] Al-Wardy NM. Assessment Methods in Undergraduate Medical Education. Sultan Qa-boos University Medical Journal. 2010;10(2). Available on: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074721/
[16] Panitia Nasional UKMPPD. Buku Pedoman Pelaksanaan UKMPPD. Jakarta: Panitia Nasional UKMPPD; 2014. h. 4–5.
[17] Surapranata S. Analisis, Validitas, Reliabilitas, dan Interpretasi Hasil Ujian. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya; 2006. h. 10.
[18] Abdulghani HM, Ahmad F, Ponnamperuma GG, Khalil MS, Aldees A. The Relationship Between Non-Functioning Distractors and Item Difficulty of Multiple Choice Questions: A Descriptive Analysis. Journal of Health Specialties. 2014;2(2):148–151.
[19] Sajjad M, Iltaf S, Khan RA. Nonfunctional Distractor Analysis: An Indicator for Quality of Multiple Choice Questions. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020;36(5):983–986.
[20] Health Professional Education Quality Project Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional. Pedoman Administrasi Bank Soal Uji Kompetensi Nasional Tenaga Kesehatan Indonesia. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan; 2010. h. 3–21.
[21] Menon AR, Kannambra PN. Item Analysis to Identify Quality Multiple Choice Ques-tions. National Journal of Laboratory Medicine. 2017;6(2):7–10.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bisatyo Mardjikoen, Ahmad Mu’taz Shobary, Achmad Zaki, Marita Fadhilah, Siti Nuraisyah Jauharoh, Ahmad Azmul A. Irfan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
