Volume 3, Issue 2 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Spring 2018)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2018, 3(2): 24-30 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rezai M, Farrokhnia T, Vatanpour M, Lesan S, Yazdipour S. Evaluation of Multiple Choice Questions of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine Courses 1, 2, and 3 in the First Semester of Academic Year 2014-2015. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2018; 3 (2) :24-30
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-205-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Oral Medicine Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran,
2- Associate Professor, Oral Medicine Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran, , taranehfar1974@gmail.com
3- Associate Professor, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran,
4- Dentist
Abstract:   (2226 Views)

Background and aim: Lack of proper assessment of students' knowledge regarding theoretical contents leads to disappointment and negligence by weak students. This study assessed multiple-choice questions (MCQs) of oral and maxillofacial medicine courses in the first semester of the academic year 2014-2015.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, questions of theoretical oral medicine courses 1, 2, and 3 were assessed according to twelve items in Millman's checklist, including clearness of stem, negative option for stem, specific option, contrastive option, positive words in stem and options, writing structure of stem, duplicated option, the spelling of stem and options, vertically of options, positivity of stem and options, and use of "all of the above" and "none of the above" phrases in options. Difficulty and discrimination coefficients of each question and the rate of compliance with Millman's principles were evaluated using Excel 2007 and SPSS 16. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Regression analysis.
Results: The responses of 219 students to 113 MCQs were evaluated. In theoretical course 1 with 40 MCQs, discrimination coefficient was 0.36±0.2, difficulty coefficient was 73.2±15.02, and correlation coefficient was 0.58. In theoretical course 2 with 35 MCQs, discrimination coefficient was 0.2±0.04, difficulty coefficient was 70.91±25.13, and correlation coefficient was 0.47. In theoretical course 3 with 38 MCQs, discrimination coefficient was 0.3±0.19, difficulty coefficient was 68.73±26.89, and correlation coefficient was 0.5. The percentage of compliance with Millman's principles was 81.88%, 83.58%, and 84.42% in courses 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Conclusion: The weakest discrimination coefficient was noted in theoretical oral medicine 2. The high percentage of simple difficulty coefficient in the three theoretical courses indicates the necessity of training faculty members in designing questions.

Full-Text [PDF 316 kb]   (1440 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (339 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article |

1. Hosseini Teshnizi S, Zare SH, Solati SM. Quality analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs) examinations of noncontinuous undergraduate medical records. Hormozgan Med J. 2010;14(3):177-83. (In Persian).
2. Kaveh Tabatabaee MS, Bahreini Toosi MH, Derakhshan A, Khajeh Dalloee M, Gholami H. Analytic assessment of multiple-choice Tests. J Med Educ. 2003;2(2):87-91.
3. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017 Jun;39(6):609-616. [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082] [PMID]
4. Shakurnia A, Khosravi Brojeni A, Mozafari A, Elhampour H. Survey on multiple choice questions of academic members in Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in 2005. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2009;6(2):129-38. (In Persian).
5. Falahati M, Mohamadzadeh Z, Entezari M. Improvement of quality and validity of student assessment: executive aspects. Iran J Med Educ. 2005 Spring;5(1):5-6. (In Persian).
6. Baghaei R, Shams S, Feizi A, Rasouli D. Evaluation of the nursing students final exam multiple-choice questions in Uremia University of Medical Sciences. J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Fac. 2016,14(4):291-99. (In Persian).
7. Newell FW, Leopold IH, Adler FH. The multiple-choice question test of the American Board of Ophthalmology. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1970;68:165-85.
8. Tekian A, Watling CJ, Roberts TE, Steinert Y, Norcini J. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency-based education. Med Teach. 2017 Dec;39(12):1245-1249. [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1372564] [PMID]
9. Ashraf Pour M. Beheshti Z, Molook Zadeh S. Quality of final examination in students of Babol Medical University, 1999-2000. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2003;5(5):42-47. (In Persian).
10. Meyari A, Beiglarkhani M. Improvement of Design of Multiple Choice Questions in Annual Residency Exams by Giving Feedback. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2013;10(1):109-18. (In Persian).
11. Haghshenas M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmudi M, Shahbaznejad L, Parvinnejad N, Emadi A. Evaluation of Multiple Choice Questions in the School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, the First Semester of 2007. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2009;5(2):120-127. (In Persian).
12. Roshanpour F, Pourmirza Kalhori R, Rezai M. Quantitative Analysis of Medical Promotion Exams in Kermanshah Health and Education University in 2008. Special Supplement for 10th National Congress of Medical Education-May 2009:335-36. (In Persian).
13. Sayar F, Vatanpour M, Ghasemi M, Shabahangfar MR. Effect of the Educational Pamphlet on the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions. JIDAI. 2016;28(4):118-125. [DOI:10.30699/jidai.29.4.118]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb