Rezigalla AA, Eleragi AMESA, Elhussein AB, Alfaifi J, ALGhamdi MA, Al Ameer AY, Yahia AIO, Mohammed OA, Adam MIE. Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.
BMC Med Educ 2024;
24:445. [PMID:
38658912 PMCID:
PMC11040895 DOI:
10.1186/s12909-024-05433-y]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 04/26/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Distractor efficiency (DE) of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) responses is a component of the psychometric analysis used by the examiners to evaluate the distractors' credibility and functionality. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the DE on the difficulty and discrimination indices.
METHODS
This cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June 2023. It utilizes the final exam of the Principles of Diseases Course with 45 s-year students. The exam consisted of 60 type A MCQs. Item analysis (IA) was generated to evaluate KR20, difficulty index (DIF), discrimination index (DIS), and distractor efficiency (DE). DIF was calculated as the percentage of examinees who scored the item correctly. DIS is an item's ability to discriminate between higher and lower 27% of examinees. For DE, any distractor selected by less than 5% is considered nonfunctional, and items were classified according to the non-functional distractors. The correlation and significance of variance between DIF, DI, and DE were evaluated.
RESULTS
The total number of examinees was 45. The KR-20 of the exam was 0.91. The mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) of the DIF of the exam was 37.5(19.1), and the majority (69.5%) were of acceptable difficulty. The M (SD) of the DIS was 0.46 (0.22), which is excellent. Most items were excellent in discrimination (69.5%), only two were not discriminating (13.6%), and the rest were of acceptable power (16.9%). Items with excellent and good efficiency represent 37.3% each, while only 3.4% were of poor efficiency. The correlation between DE and DIF (p = 0.000, r= -0.548) indicates that items with efficient distractors (low number of NFD) are associated with those having a low difficulty index (difficult items) and vice versa. The correlation between DE and DIS is significantly negative (P = 0.0476, r=-0.259). In such a correlation, items with efficient distractors are associated with low-discriminating items.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a significant moderate negative correlation between DE and DIF (P = 0.00, r = -0.548) and a significant weak negative correlation between DE and DIS (P = 0.0476, r = -0.259). DIF has a non-significant negative correlation with DIS (P = 0.7124, r = -0.0492). DE impacts both DIF and DIS. Items with efficient distractors (low number of NFD) are associated with those having a low difficulty index (difficult items) and discriminating items. Improving the quality of DE will decrease the number of NFDs and result in items with acceptable levels of difficulty index and discrimination power.
Collapse