Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options
Abstract Background There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-09-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Education |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-x |
| _version_ | 1818342259669598208 |
|---|---|
| author | Mike Tweed |
| author_facet | Mike Tweed |
| author_sort | Mike Tweed |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates to two or three distractors respectively. Maintext Whilst these arguments may be true when focusing on psychometric aspects of questions, we should also focus on educational and clinical authenticity aspects of questions. I present reasons for MCQs in tests to have a variable number of options which will usually be more than three, four, or five. These include: decisions related to broad clinical scenarios cannot be limited to a small number of options; options lists should include all possible combinations of option elements; and options that are rarely chosen can provide information regarding students and/or for students. Conclusion Finally, given computer based delivery, longer option lists are not impractical for examinees. In the contexts that are appropriate, it is time to consider a move to adopting appropriate and variable numbers of MCQ options and not be limited to MCQs with three, four or five options. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T16:11:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-72d4a8b60b824c08b5fdf19cfad8af3c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6920 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T16:11:51Z |
| publishDate | 2019-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Education |
| spelling | doaj.art-72d4a8b60b824c08b5fdf19cfad8af3c2022-12-21T23:38:55ZengBMCBMC Medical Education1472-69202019-09-011911410.1186/s12909-019-1801-xAdding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five optionsMike Tweed0Department of Medicine, University of Otago WellingtonAbstract Background There is a significant body of literature that indicates that the number of options for single-best answer multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be reduced from five to three or four without adversely affecting the quality of the questions and tests. Three or four options equates to two or three distractors respectively. Maintext Whilst these arguments may be true when focusing on psychometric aspects of questions, we should also focus on educational and clinical authenticity aspects of questions. I present reasons for MCQs in tests to have a variable number of options which will usually be more than three, four, or five. These include: decisions related to broad clinical scenarios cannot be limited to a small number of options; options lists should include all possible combinations of option elements; and options that are rarely chosen can provide information regarding students and/or for students. Conclusion Finally, given computer based delivery, longer option lists are not impractical for examinees. In the contexts that are appropriate, it is time to consider a move to adopting appropriate and variable numbers of MCQ options and not be limited to MCQs with three, four or five options.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-xMCQ distractor |
| spellingShingle | Mike Tweed Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options BMC Medical Education MCQ distractor |
| title | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
| title_full | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
| title_fullStr | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
| title_full_unstemmed | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
| title_short | Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options |
| title_sort | adding to the debate on the numbers of options for mcqs the case for not being limited to mcqs with three four or five options |
| topic | MCQ distractor |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-019-1801-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT miketweed addingtothedebateonthenumbersofoptionsformcqsthecasefornotbeinglimitedtomcqswiththreefourorfiveoptions |