Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice questions in a NAPLEX preparation book

被引:7
|
作者
Danh, Tina [1 ]
Desiderio, Tamara [1 ]
Herrmann, Victoria [1 ]
Lyons, Heather M. [1 ]
Patrick, Frankie [1 ]
Wantuch, Gwendolyn A. [1 ]
Dell, Kamila A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ S Florida, Taneja Coll Pharm, 12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd,MDC 30, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
关键词
Multiple choice question; Item writing flaw; NAPLEX; Test-wise; Question writing; ITEM-WRITING FLAWS; ACHIEVEMENT; PRINCIPLES; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.cptl.2020.05.006
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Introduction: There is a plethora of preparatory books and guides available to help study for the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX). However, the quality of questions included has not been scrutinized. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) construction in a commonly used NAPLEX preparatory book. Methods: Five students and two faculty members reviewed MCQs from the RxPrep 2018 edition course book. Item structure and utilization of case-based questions were evaluated using best practices for item construction. Frequency of item writing flaws (IWF) and utilization of cases for case-based questions was identified. Results: A total of 298 questions were reviewed. Twenty-seven (9.1%) questions met all best practices for item construction. Flawed questions contained an average of 2.53 IWF per MCQ. The most commonly identified best practice violations were answer choices containing differing length and verb tense (21%) and question stems containing too little or too much information necessary to eliminate distractors (16.6%). Of the case-based questions, the majority (61.9%) did not require utilization of the provided case. Conclusions: This pilot analysis identified that a majority of MCQs in one NAPLEX preparatory source contained IWF. These results align with previous evaluations of test-banks in published books outside of pharmacy. Further evaluation of other preparatory materials, to expand on the findings from this pilot analysis, are needed to evaluate the pervasiveness of IWF in preparatory materials and the effect of flawed questions on utility of study materials.
引用
收藏
页码:1188 / 1193
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] MARKING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    BUCKLEYS.MD
    HARRIS, FTC
    LANCET, 1969, 1 (7587): : 205 - &
  • [22] MARKING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    DAVIS, AE
    PRESTON, GM
    LANCET, 1969, 1 (7593): : 528 - &
  • [23] Neurotrauma: In Multiple-Choice Questions
    McPheeters, Matthew J.
    Hoz, Samer S.
    Cherian, Iype
    Dolachee, Ali A.
    Al-Sharshahi, Zahraa F.
    Al-Dhahir, Mohammed A.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 91 (01) : E7 - E8
  • [24] MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS IN MATHEMATICS
    Smetanova, D.
    EDULEARN18: 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, 2018, : 2220 - 2224
  • [25] USABILITY OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS IN EVALUATING STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN PHARMACEUTICAL CALCULATIONS
    SMITH, H
    LOWENTHAL, W
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION, 1974, 38 (04) : 550 - 553
  • [26] The impact of a faculty development seminar on the quality of multiple-choice questions
    Nemec, Eric C.
    Welch, Beth
    CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2016, 8 (02) : 160 - 163
  • [27] Using cognitive models to develop quality multiple-choice questions
    Pugh, Debra
    De Champlain, Andre
    Gierl, Mark
    Lai, Hollis
    Touchie, Claire
    MEDICAL TEACHER, 2016, 38 (08) : 838 - 843
  • [28] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PICTORIAL MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS AND OTHER MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS ON THE PEDIATRIC SPECIALTY EXAMINATION
    SKAKUN, EN
    TAYLOR, WC
    CLINICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE-MEDECINE CLINIQUE ET EXPERIMENTALE, 1985, 8 (03): : A142 - A142
  • [29] MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISCARRIAGES IN MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    MELZER, CW
    SCHACH, SR
    KOESLAG, JH
    SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1976, 50 (29): : 1123 - 1123
  • [30] POSITION BIAS IN MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    BLUNCH, NJ
    JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1984, 21 (02) : 216 - 220