Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments

Medical Education

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 198-206

  Tarrant, Marie ^a   Ware, James ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b KUWAIT UNIVERSITY   (Kuwait)

Author keywords

Education, nursing *methods standards; Educational measurement *methods standards; Educational status

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; NURSING EDUCATION; NURSING STUDENT; RATING SCALE;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EDUCATION, NURSING; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HONG KONG; TEACHING;

EID: 38349164104     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Downing SM. Assessment of knowledge with written test forms. In : Norman GR, van der Vleuten C, Newble DI, eds. International Handbook of Research in Medical Education. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 647 72.
2. McCoubrie P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Med Teach 2004 26 : 709 12.
3. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ 2004 38 : 974 9.
4. Masters JC, Hulsmeyer BS, Pike ME, Leichty K, Miller MT, Verst AL. Assessment of multiple-choice questions in selected test banks accompanying text books used in nursing education. J Nurs Educ 2001 40 : 25 32.
5. Tarrant M, Knierim A, Hayes SK, Ware J. The frequency of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high-stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Educ Today 2006 26 : 662 71.
6. Hansen JD. Quality multiple-choice test questions: item-writing guidelines and an analysis of auditing test banks. J Educ Bus 1997 73 : 94 7.
7. Downing SM. Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference? Acad Med 2002 77 (Suppl) : 103 4.
8. Downing SM. The effects of violating standard item-writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ 2005 10 : 133 43.
9. Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med 2002 77 : 156 61.
10. Vahalia KV, Subramaniam K, Marks SC Jr., De Souza EJ. The use of multiple-choice tests in anatomy: common pitfalls and how to avoid them. Clin Anat 1995 8 : 61 5.
11. Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, 3rd edn. Philadelphia : National Board of Medical Examiners 2001 19 29.
12. Gronlund NE. Assessment of Student Achievement, 8th edn. Boston : Pearson/Allyn & Bacon 2006 53 76.
13. Haladyna TM. Developing and Validating Multiple-choice Test Items, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum 2004 97 126.
14. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Meas Educ 1989 2 : 37 50.
15. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Meas Educ 1989 2 : 51 78.
16. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ 2002 15 : 309 34.
17. Downing SM. Threats to the validity of locally developed multiple-choice tests in medical education: construct-irrelevant variance and construct under-representation. Adv Health Sci Educ 2002 7 : 235 41.
18. Crehan K, Haladyna TM. The validity of two item-writing rules. J Exp Educ 1991 59 : 183 92.
19. Frary RB. The none-of-the-above option: an empirical study. Appl Meas Educ 1991 4 : 115 24.
20. Harasym PH, Leong EJ, Violato C, Brant R, Lorscheider FL. Cuing effect of 'all of the above' on the reliability and validity of multiple-choice test items. Eval Health Prof 1998 21 : 120 33.
21. Tamir P. Positive and negative multiple-choice items: how different are they? Stud Educ Eval 1993 19 : 311 32.
22. Harasym PH, Price PG, Brant R, Violato C, Lorscheider FL. Evaluation of negation in stems of multiple-choice items. Eval Health Prof 1992 15 : 198 220.
23. Albanese MA. Type K and other complex multiple-choice items: an analysis of research and item properties. Educ Meas Issues Pract 1993 12 : 28 33.
24. Nnodim JO. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy. Med Educ 1992 26 : 301 9.
25. Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 2004 38 : 1006 12.
26. Osterlind SJ. Constructing Test Items: Multiple-choice, Constructed-response, Performance, and Other Formats, 2nd edn. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998 253 300.
27. Precht D, Hazlett C, Yip S, Nicholls J. International Database for Enhanced Assessments and Learning (IDEAL-HK): Item Analysis Users' Guide. Hong Kong : IDEAL-HK 2003.
28. Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.2. College Station, Tx : Stata Corp 2005.
29. Morrison S, Free KW. Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking. J Nurs Educ 2001 40 : 17 24.
30. Messick S. Validity. In : Linn RL, ed. Educational Measurement, 3rd edn. New York : American Council on Education 1988 13 104.
31. Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ 2002 36 : 800 4.