The Quality of MCQs in Radiology Theory Lessons Assessed by the Millman Standard
Asian Journal of Medical Principles and Clinical Practice,
Background: One of the real concerns of society, especially students and teachers, in particular, is the issue of student assessment in content learning theory. If the assessment of these questions cannot asses students' knowledge, it discourages active students, and, on the other hand, less attention leads to having poor students, which has known implications, especially in dentistry that endangers the health of the community.
Aim: Therefore, this research was conducted to evaluate the radiological multiple-choice questions 1, 2 and 3 in the second semester of the academic year 2016-2017.
Methods: This study was a Cross-Sectional one and data were calculated by ANOVA and regression analysis.
Results: During the study, 278 students’ answers of 611 questions were evaluated in theoretical radiological lessons 1, 2 and 3. On radiology 1 out of 40 multiple choice questions and 102 students, discrimination indexes were 0.23 ± 0.15 and difficulty coefficient % 54.8 ± 92.43 and the correlation coefficient was 0.64 and on Radio 2 from the 36 multiple-choice question discrimination index was 0.81 ± 0.61, difficulty coefficient % 37.86 ± 21.69 and the correlation were 0.48. On Radio 3 out of 40 multiple-choice questions, the discrimination coefficient was 0.40 ± 0.02, correlation coefficient % 65.37 ± 17.89 and the correlation was 0.68. In examining ways of Millman. These principles were met in radiology 1 (% 96.75 ± 4.50) and in radiology 2 (% 95.65 ± 5.58) and in radiology 3 (% 29/50 ± 8/12).
Conclusion: It shows that radiology questions 1 and 2 were low discrimination index and difficulty coefficient Radio 1, 2 and 3 was average.
- discrimination index
- difficulty index
How to Cite
Shakoornia A, Khosravi A, Shariati A, Zarei A, Survey on the multiple-choice question of faculty members of the Jondishapor medical university of Ahwaz. The 8th Nationa Congress of Medical Education. Kerman: Kerman University of medical sciences. 2007;44.
Seif A. Educational measurement, assessment and evaluation. 4th Ed Tehran; 2012.
The 8th National Congress of Medical Education. Kerman: Kerman University of Medical Sciences. 2007;68.
Gholami Vafamehr V, Dadgostarnia M. (Assessment of Effect of proficiency on MCQ in the reliability of clinical medicine query in Esfahan Medical University; 2005.
Newell FW, Leopold IH, Adler FH. The multiple-choice question test of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The American Ophthal. Society Publication. 1970;68:163-170.
Mehrens WA, Lehmann IJ. Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. 4th Ed. New York, Wadsworth Publishing; 1991.
Haghshenas M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmoudi M, Shahbazi Nejad L, Parvin Nejad N, Emadi A. (Evaluation of multiple-choice questions in the school of medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. The First Semester of 2007. Strides in the Development of Medical Education. 2008;5(2):120-7.
Vahid Shahi Kourosh, Mohagheghi Mohammad Ali, Shakeri Stegideh, Sotbouri Mustaheh, Mohtardi Composer. Comparison of some quality indicators of multi-choice questions of the written test of the encyclopedia 6813 and 97. Quality Improvement Unit Testing Specialty Secretariat Secretariat; 2014.
Rasolinejad SA, Vakihi Z, Fashion E, Mosayebi Z, monorail R, comparative survey of taxonomies of residents promotion, examination Kashan Medical University; 2006.
Zare Shahram, Solati Mehrdad, Hosseini Teshini Saeed. Quality analysis of quiz questions. Conclusion. Hormozgan Medical Journal. Peace 8913. 14(3).
Meyari Azam, Biglokhani Mehdi, Zandi Mohammad, Mir Esmaeili Amir Farhang. The effect of educational intervention on the optimization of multi-choice questions design in dental promotion promotion tests. Iranian Journal of Medical Education; 1913.
Pourmirza Kalhori R, Rezai M. Roshanpour F (Qualitative analysis of medical promotion exams at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. Special Supplement for a 10th National Congress of Medical Education. 2009;335-336.
Abstract View: 2156 times
PDF Download: 643 times