10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Impact of 3-Option Responses to Multiple-Choice Questions on Guessing Strategies and Cut Score Determinations

      article-commentary

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Research has asserted MCQ items using three response options (one correct answer with two distractors) is comparable to, and possibly preferable over, traditional MCQ item formats consisting of four response options (e.g., one correct answer with three distractors), or five response options (e.g., one correct answer with four distractors). Some medical educators have also adopted the practice of using 3-option responses on MCQ exams as a response to the difficulty experienced in generating additional plausible distractors. To date, however, little work has explored how 3-option responses might impact validity threats stemming from random guessing strategies, and what impact 3-option responses might have on cut-score determinations, particularly in the context of medical education classroom assessments. The purpose of this work is to further explore these critically important considerations that largely have gone ignored in the medical education literature to this point.

          Methods:

          A cumulative binomial distribution formula was used to calculate the probability that an examinee will answer at random a given number of items correctly on any exam (of any length). By way of a demonstration, a variety of scenarios were presented to illustrate how examination length and the number of response options impact examinees’ chances of passing a given examination, and how subsequent cut-score decisions may be impacted by these factors.

          Results:

          As a general rule, classroom assessments containing fewer items should utilize traditional 4-option or 5-option responses, whereas assessments of greater length are afforded greater flexibility in potentially utilizing 3-option responses.

          Conclusions:

          More research on items with 3-option responses is needed to better understand what value, if any, 3-option responses truly add to classroom assessments, and in what contexts potential benefits might be discernible.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Three Options Are Optimal for Multiple-Choice Items: A Meta-Analysis of 80 Years of Research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            An Analysis of the Verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test Using Birnbaum's Three-Parameter Logistic Model

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding Reliability: A Review for Veterinary Educators.

              Veterinary medical faculty and administrators routinely administer student assessments and conduct surveys to make decisions regarding student performance and to assess their courses/curricula. The decisions that are made are a result of the scores generated. However, how reliable are the scores and how confident can we be about these decisions? Reliability is one of the hallmarks of validity evidence, but what does this mean and what affects the reliability of scores? The purpose of this article is to provide veterinary medical educators and administrators with fundamental information regarding the concept of reliability. Specifically, we review what sources of error reduce the reliability of scores and we describe the different types of reliability coefficients that are reported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Adv Med Educ Prof
                J Adv Med Educ Prof
                Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
                Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism (Iran )
                2322-2220
                2322-3561
                April 2017
                : 5
                : 2
                : 84-89
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
                [2 ]College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence:Kenneth D. Royal, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, Tel:1.919.513.6100, Fax:1.919.513.6464
                Article
                JAMP-5-2
                5346173
                a5401f87-bd5a-47d3-879f-a07a887fa83b
                Copyright: © Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 December 2016
                : 30 August 2016
                Categories
                Commentary

                medical education , assessment , evaluation , psychometrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article