Difficulty, discrimination and cognitive level of microbiology exam questions in the Faculty of medicine of tunis
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
SUMMARY
Introduction: Based on difficulty and discrimination indices and cognitive levels of Bloom, we assessed in this study the quality of Microbiology exam questions (main session 2012-2013, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis).
Methods: We analyzed 70 questions: 16 (exam“A”) given to 533 students (1st year), 28 and 26 (exams“B1” and “B2”) given respectively to 285 and 292 students (3rd year). For every question, we determined difficulty and discrimination indices and the highest cognitive level required to resolve it. We calculated mean difficulty and discrimination indices for each exam and cognitive level, and mean indices of discrimination for every difficulty degree.
Results: The 70 questions were of optimum difficulty (0.58), good discrimination (0.31) and explored mainly (58.57%) the lowest cognitive level. For both years, mean indices of difficulty were acceptable, while those of discrimination were good (0.33) and marginal (0.27) for respectively 3rd and 1st year. “A” explored Lower
Orders of Cognitive Skills (LOCS), “B2” both Lower and High Orders and “B1” all orders. Mean difficulty indices of every cognitive level were acceptable except for the median one (0.83). Mean discrimination indices were good for all cognitive levels except for LOCS of the 1st year (0.27). Mean indices of discrimination were marginal (0.29) for difficult questions and good for others. Compared to B2, B1 was more attainable and discriminative, free of poor discrimination questions, and explored all cognitive orders.
Conclusion: Our study remains specific to particular questions and generalizations seem difficult. However, it can serve as a guideline to other similar studies.
Introduction: Based on difficulty and discrimination indices and cognitive levels of Bloom, we assessed in this study the quality of Microbiology exam questions (main session 2012-2013, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis).
Methods: We analyzed 70 questions: 16 (exam“A”) given to 533 students (1st year), 28 and 26 (exams“B1” and “B2”) given respectively to 285 and 292 students (3rd year). For every question, we determined difficulty and discrimination indices and the highest cognitive level required to resolve it. We calculated mean difficulty and discrimination indices for each exam and cognitive level, and mean indices of discrimination for every difficulty degree.
Results: The 70 questions were of optimum difficulty (0.58), good discrimination (0.31) and explored mainly (58.57%) the lowest cognitive level. For both years, mean indices of difficulty were acceptable, while those of discrimination were good (0.33) and marginal (0.27) for respectively 3rd and 1st year. “A” explored Lower
Orders of Cognitive Skills (LOCS), “B2” both Lower and High Orders and “B1” all orders. Mean difficulty indices of every cognitive level were acceptable except for the median one (0.83). Mean discrimination indices were good for all cognitive levels except for LOCS of the 1st year (0.27). Mean indices of discrimination were marginal (0.29) for difficult questions and good for others. Compared to B2, B1 was more attainable and discriminative, free of poor discrimination questions, and explored all cognitive orders.
Conclusion: Our study remains specific to particular questions and generalizations seem difficult. However, it can serve as a guideline to other similar studies.
Keywords:
Difficulty index, discrimination index, Bloom's taxonomy, microbiology exams##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
References
- Vanderbilt A, Feldman M, Wood I. Assessment in undergraduate medical education: a review of course exams. Med Educ Online 2013; 18:1-5.
- Shafizan S. Item analysis of student comprehensive test for research in teaching beginner string ensemble using model based teaching among music students in public universities. IJER 2013; 1:1-14.
- Crowe A, Dirks C, Pat WP. Biology in Bloom: implanting Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008; 7: 368-381.
- Plack M, Driscoll M, Marquez M, Cuppernull L, Maring J, Greenberg L. Assessing reflective writing on a pediatric clerkship by using a modified bloom's taxonomy. Ambul pediatr 2007; 7: 285-91.
- Karelia B, Pillai A, Vegada B. The levels of difficulty and discrimination indices and relationship between them in four-response type multiple choice questions of pharmacology summative tests of year II M.B.B.S students. IeJSME 2013; 7: 15-20.
- Hingorjo MR, Farhan J. Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. J Pass Med Assoc 2012;62: 142-7.
- MacAlpine M. A summary of methods of item analysis. CAA Centre Bluepaper 2, University of Luton 2002.
- Kartik A, Neeraj R. Itemized analysis of questions of multiple choice question (MCQ) exam. ISJR 2013; 2: 279-80.
- Tabatabaee M, Bahreyni TM, Derakhshan A, Dalloee M, Gholami H. Analytic assessment of multiple-choice tests. IJME 2003; 2:87-91.
- Henrysson S. Correction of item-total correlations in item analysis. Psyckometrika 1963; 28: 211-218.
- Theodorsson T, El Shafie K, Al Wardy N, Al Maherzi A, Al Shafaee M. Assessment of Family Doctors in Oman: getting the questions right preliminary findings of a performance analysis of multiple choice questions. Int J Med Educ 2010; 1: 2-5.
- Palmer EJ, Devitt PG. Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC med educ 2007; 7: 1-7.