Multiple Choice Questions Revisited: Improvement of Validity for Fair Tests
Abstract
In the last two decades there is a vast increase in the number of medical schools all over the world, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO). This necessitates the existence of faculty development programme for the increasing staff.
The objective of this communication is to revisit the multiple choice question elaborate on factors that will affect its validity, aiming at having acceptable fair test for the students.
This communication describe the major threats of validity of multiple choice questions , namely the construct under representation (CU) and the construct irrelevant (CIV) threats and it describe how can they be overcome.
The communication concluded that faculty development programmes and the use of guidelines and blueprint will lead to improvement in the tests validity in medical schools.
References
2. Mccoubrie, Paul. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions:a literature review. Medical Teacher. 2004, Vol. 26, 8, pp. 709–712.
3. Anderson, John. For Multiple Choice Questions. Medical Teacher. 1979, Vol. 1, 1.
4. Lau, Man Pang. A theory of multiple-choice examination. British Journal of Medical Education. 1972, 6.
5. Case, Susan M. Constructing Written Test Questions For the Basic and Clinical Sciences. Philadelphia : National Board of Medical Examiners, 2002.
6. Vleuten, Lambert W T Schuwirth & Cees P M van der. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Medical Education. 2004, 38, pp. 974–979.
7. Marie Tarrant, James Ware. A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today. August 2010, Vol. 30, 6, pp. 539-543.
8. Downing, Steven M. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education . 2003, 37, pp. 830-837.
9. Steven M Downing, Thomas M Haladyna. Validity threats: overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Medical Education. 2004, 38, pp. 327-333.
10. Downing, Steven M. Construct-irrelevant Variance and Flawed Test Questions: Do Multiple-choice Item-writing Principles Make Any Difference? Academic Medicine. October 2002, Vol. 77, 10 Supplement , pp. S103-S104.
11. Hamdy, Hossam. Blueprinting for the assessment of health care professionals. The Clinical Teacher. 2006, 3, pp. 175-179.
12. Patrick D. Bridge, Joseph Musial, Robert Frank,Thomas Roe,Shlomo Sawilowsky. Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations. Medical Teacher. July 2003, Vol. 25, 4, pp. 414–421.
13. Sylvian Coderre, Wayne Woloschuk, Kevin Mclaughlin. Twelve tips for blueprinting. Medical Teacher. 2009, 31, pp. 322-324.
14. Ralph F. Jozefowicz, MD, Bruce MRalph F. Jozefowicz,Bruce M. Koeppen,Susan Case,Robert Galbraith,David Swanson, Robert H. Glew. The Quality of In-house Medical School Examinations. Academic Medicine.. February 2002, Vol. 77, 2, pp. 156-161.
15. Marie Tarrant, James Ware. Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments. Medical Education. 2008, 42, pp. 198–206.
16. Marie Tarrant, Aimee Knierim,Sasha K. Hayes,James Ware. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today. 2006, 26, pp. 662-671.
