• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course.一年级医学生理学课程中选择题形式的比较
J CME. 2024 Aug 12;13(1):2390264. doi: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264. eCollection 2024.
2
Writing Multiple Choice Questions-Has the Student Become the Master?编写多项选择题——学生是否已经成为主人?
Teach Learn Med. 2023 Jun-Jul;35(3):356-367. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2022.2050240. Epub 2022 May 1.
3
Item Analysis of Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ)-Based Exam Efficiency Among Postgraduate Pediatric Medical Students: An Observational, Cross-Sectional Study From Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯研究生儿科医学生基于多项选择题考试效率的项目分析:一项观察性横断面研究
Cureus. 2024 Sep 11;16(9):e69151. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69151. eCollection 2024 Sep.
4
Item Analysis of Single Best Response Type Multiple Choice Questions for Formative Assessment in Obstetrics and Gynaecology.妇产科形成性评估中单项最佳答案型多项选择题的项目分析
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2024 Jun;74(3):256-264. doi: 10.1007/s13224-023-01904-2. Epub 2024 Feb 20.
5
Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.项目分析:干扰项效率对多项选择题难度指数和区分度的影响。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Apr 24;24(1):445. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05433-y.
6
A comparison of clinical-scenario (case cluster) versus stand-alone multiple choice questions in a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate medicine.本科医学基于问题的学习环境中临床情景(病例组)与独立多项选择题的比较。
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2016 Nov 11;12(1):14-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.08.014. eCollection 2017 Feb.
7
Effectiveness of e-Learning in a Medical School 2.0 Model: Comparison of Item Analysis for Student-Generated vs. Faculty-Generated Multiple-Choice Questions.医学院2.0模式下电子学习的有效性:学生生成与教师生成的多项选择题的项目分析比较
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:184-188.
8
Relations of the Number of Functioning Distractors With the Item Difficulty Index and the Item Discrimination Power in the Multiple Choice Questions.选择题中有效干扰项数量与题目难度指数及题目区分度的关系
Cureus. 2023 Jul 26;15(7):e42492. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42492. eCollection 2023 Jul.
9
A psychometric analysis of a newly developed summative, multiple choice question assessment adapted from Canada to a Middle Eastern context.对一项新开发的总结性多项选择题评估进行的心理测量分析,该评估从加拿大改编至中东背景。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Aug;10(8):1026-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.05.003. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
10
Nonfunctional distractor analysis: An indicator for quality of Multiple choice questions.无功能干扰项分析:多项选择题质量的一个指标
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Jul-Aug;36(5):982-986. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.5.2439.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of AI-generated and clinician-designed multiple-choice questions in emergency medicine exam: a psychometric analysis.急诊医学考试中人工智能生成与临床医生设计的多项选择题比较:一项心理测量学分析
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):949. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07528-6.
2
Exploring how complex multiple-choice questions could contribute to inequity in introductory physics.探究复杂的多项选择题如何导致大学物理入门课程中的不公平现象。
PLoS One. 2025 May 30;20(5):e0323813. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323813. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Best Practices Related to Examination Item Construction and Post-hoc Review.最佳实践与考试项目构建及事后审查相关。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2019 Sep;83(7):7204. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7204.
2
The Impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality.选项瑕疵、低认知水平测试以及干扰项功能欠佳对多项选择题质量的影响。
Perspect Med Educ. 2015 Oct;4(5):244-251. doi: 10.1007/s40037-015-0212-x.
3
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications.专业能力评估:发展、研究与实际影响。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996 Jan;1(1):41-67. doi: 10.1007/BF00596229.
4
Writing multiple-choice questions.编写多项选择题。
Acad Psychiatry. 2010 Jul-Aug;34(4):310-6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.34.4.310.
5
An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.评估多选题中的干扰项的功能和非功能:描述性分析。
BMC Med Educ. 2009 Jul 7;9:40. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-40.
6
Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options.多项选择题:关于最佳选项数量的文献综述
Natl Med J India. 2008 May-Jun;21(3):130-3.
7
Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education.用于护理研究与教育的多项选择题的设计、形式、效度和信度
Collegian. 2005 Jan;12(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/s1322-7696(08)60478-3.
8
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.违反标准试题编写原则对考试及学生的影响:医学教育中使用有缺陷的试题对成绩考试的后果。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10(2):133-43. doi: 10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5.
9
Cuing effect of "all of the above" on the reliability and validity of multiple-choice test items.
Eval Health Prof. 1998 Mar;21(1):120-33. doi: 10.1177/016327879802100106.
10
Multiple-choice testing in anatomy.解剖学中的多项选择题测试。
Med Educ. 1992 Jul;26(4):301-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00173.x.

一年级医学生理学课程中选择题形式的比较

Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course.

作者信息

Wilson L Britt, DiStefano Christine, Wang Huijuan, Blanck Erika L

机构信息

Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.

Department of Educational and Developmental Science, College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

出版信息

J CME. 2024 Aug 12;13(1):2390264. doi: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264
PMID:39157702
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11328596/
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and r (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions ( = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF;  = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.

摘要

本研究的目的是比较遵循标准格式(SF)的多项选择题(MCQ)与不遵循标准格式(本文称为非标准格式,NSF)的多项选择题的学生表现和题目区分度。我们使用了在五年期间(2020 - 2024年)收集的约500名一年级医学生的医学生理学考试成绩。确定并比较了经典测试理论题目分析指标,如区分度(D)、点二列相关系数(r)、非功能性干扰项(NFD)的干扰项分析以及难度(p),涵盖不同格式类型的MCQ。此处呈现的结果是均值±均值标准误差(SEM)。分析表明,与SF题目相比,NSF题目的D(0.278 ± 0.008对0.228 ± 0.006)和r(0.291 ± 0.006对0.273 ± 0.006)显著更高,表明NSF题目具有更强的区分能力。此外,NSF题目的NFD百分比低于SF题目(58.3 ± 0.019%对70.2 ± 0.015%)。而且,相对于SF题目,NSF题目更难(NSF为0.741 ± 0.007;SF为0.809 ± 0.006)。因此,NSF题目区分度更好,NFD更少,且比SF题目更难。这些数据表明,使用选定的非标准题目编写方式可以提高在MCQ中区分高分与低分学生的能力,同时使考试更加严格。