Writing Multiple Choice Questions—Has the Student Become the Master?

Abstract

Construct

We compared the quality of clinician-authored and student-authored multiple choice questions (MCQs) using a formative, mock examination of clinical knowledge for medical students.

Background

Multiple choice questions are a popular format used in medical programs of assessment. A challenge for educators is creating high-quality items efficiently. For expediency’s sake, a standard practice is for faculties to repeat items in examinations from year to year. This study aims to compare the quality of student-authored with clinician-authored items as a potential source of new items to include in faculty item banks.

Approach

We invited Year IV and V medical students at the University of Adelaide to participate in a mock examination. The participants first completed an online instructional module on strategies for answering and writing MCQs, then submitted one original MCQ each for potential inclusion in the mock examination. Two 180-item mock examinations, one for each year level, were constructed. Each consisted of 90 student-authored items and 90 clinician-authored items. Participants were blinded to the author of each item. Each item was analyzed for item difficulty and discrimination, number of item-writing flaws (IWFs) and non-functioning distractors (NFDs), and cognitive skill level (using a modified version of Bloom’s taxonomy).

Findings

Eighty-nine and 91 students completed the Year IV and V examinations, respectively. Student-authored items, compared with clinician-authored items, tended to be written at both a lower cognitive skill and difficulty level. They contained a significantly higher rate of IWFs (2–3.5 times) and NFDs (1.18 times). However, they were equally or better discriminating items than clinician-authored items.

Conclusions

Students can author MCQ items with comparable discrimination to clinician-authored items, despite being inferior in other parameters. Student-authored items may be considered a potential source of material for faculty item banks; however, several barriers exist to their use in a summative setting. The overall quality of items remains suboptimal, regardless of author. This highlights the need for ongoing faculty training in item writing.

Keywords:

• Student-authored
• multiple choice question
• item-writing flaws
• cognitive skill level
• non-functioning distractor

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Jana Bednarz (statistician) for her contribution to the statistical analysis.

Declaration of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.