Correlation of MCQ subtypes with grading of performance among undergraduate students in a preclinical discipline

Jayshri Ghate, Meenakshi Sinha, Ramanjan Sinha


Background: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) remain an important tool for objective assessment in medical students wherein different types of MCQs reflect students’ performance towards various aspects of cognitive domain. Thus, all students may not perform with similar ability across all different types of MCQs. In this context, the current study aim to investigate whether performance of medical students in MCQ based assessment relates to the performance in different subtypes of MCQs in Physiology.

Methods: Marks obtained in 65 MCQ during formative assessment by 145 first year MBBS students were segregated into four different types of standard MCQs attempted (i.e. Single Response-SRQ, Multiple Response-MRQ, Reason-Assertion-RAQ and Problem based-PBQ) while students were grouped into High, Medium and Low achievers (HA, MA and LA respectively) in relation to their total score.

Results: Result showed highest scores in SRQ (69.00±11.6%, 57.34±11.12% and 40.11±13.03%) and PBQ (71.04±11.68%, 59.38±15.36% and 42.35±15.72%) but lowest in MRQ (49.16±11.58%, 41.39±12.42% and 30.78±14.10%) and RAQ (48.82±12.48%, 44.17±14.25% and 31.80±13.05%) for HA, MA and LA respectively with significant differences among all groups. However, total MCQ marks were significantly correlated with MRQ and PBQ for HA; with SRQ and MRQ for MA; and SRQ, MRQ and PBQ for LA.

Conclusions: MRQ might have significant influence on the outcome of MCQ based assessment in differentiating between high and medium achievers, whereas both MRQ and PBQ shows potential to differentiate between high and low achieving students. This may be utilized for effective screening in summative assessments or progress of learning in formative assessment.


High achiever, Low achiever, Multiple response questions, Reason assertion, Types of MCQ

Full Text:



Wass V, Vleuten CV, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of competence. Lancet. 2001;357:945-9.

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;7:49.

Gajjar S, Sharma R, Pradeep K, Rana M. Item and Test Analysis to Identify Quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from an Assessment of Medical Students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Ind J Comm. Med. 2014;39(1):17-8.

Vaidya SMCQ. As a method of evaluation in anatomy and its comparison with other methods. Bulletin of NTTC. 2001;8(1):3-4.

Mishra A. Multiple choice questions and other methods of evaluation in anatomy: a comparative study. J Evol Med and Dent Sci. 2013;12(37):7086-9.

Abdalla ME, Gaffar AM, Sulaiman RA. Writing high –cognitive level MCQ. In: Blueprints In Health Profession Education Series, Constructing A-type multiple choice questions (MCQs): step by step manual. 2011:21-4.

Al-Rukban MO. Guidelines for the construction of multiple choice questions tests. J Family Community Med. 2006;13(3):125-33.

Sim S, Rasiah RI. Relationship Between Item Difficulty and Discrimination Indices in True/False-Type Multiple Choice Questions of a Para-Clinical Multidisciplinary Paper. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2006;35(2):67-71.

Williams JB. Assertion‐reason multiple‐choice testing as a tool for deep learning: a qualitative analysis. Assessment and evaluation in higher education. 2007;31(3):287-301.

Burton SA, Sudweeks RR, Merrill PF, Wood B. Varieties of multiple- choice items. In How to Prepare Better Multiple-Choice Test Items: Guidelines for University Faculty. Brigham Young University. 1991:10-4.

Rao C, Prasad HLK, Sajitha K, Permi H, Shetty J. Item analysis of multiple choice questions: Assessing an assessment tool in medical students. Intl J Educational Psychological Res. 2016;2(4):201-4.

Pande SS, Pande SR, Parate VR, Nikam AP, Agrekar SH. Correlation between difficulty and discrimination indices of MCQs in formative exam in physiology. South-East Asian J Med Educ. 2013;7:45-50.

Ghate J, Sinha M, Sinha R. Importance of administering various types of MCQs for stratification of achievers in formative assessment of medical students. IJPP (Suppl). 2014;58(5):115.

Bobby Z, Nandeesha H, Sridhar MG, Soundravally R, Setya S, Babu MS et al. Identification of mistakes and their correction by small group discussion as a revision exercise at the end of teaching module in Biocemistry. Natl Med J Ind. 2014;27(1):22-3.

Rogers WT, Harley D. An empirical comparison of three and four-choice items and test: Susceptibility to test wiseness and internal consistency reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1999;24:3-13.

Mitra NK, Nagaraja HS, Ponnudurai G, Judson JP. The levels of difficulty and discrimination indices in type A Multiple Choice Questions of Preclinical Semester 1 multidisciplinary summative tests. IeJSME. 2009;3(1):2-7.

Lord FM. Optimal number of choices per item: A comparison of four approaches. J Educ Meas. 1977;14:33-8.

Agu AU, Esom EA, Nto JN, Anyanwu GE, Ezugworie JO, Adiri CO, et al. Students preference for various types of assessments in anatomy examination. Intl J Develop Res. 2014;4(7):1377-9.

McKenna C, Bull J. Extending MCQs. In: Designing effective objective test questions: an introductory workshop. CCA centre, Loughborough University. 1999:8-14.

Vyas R, Supe A. Multiple choice questions: A literature review on the optimal number of options. National Med J India. 2008;21(3):130-3.

Myo-Kyoung K, Patel RA , Uchizono JA, Lynn B. Incorporation of Bloom’s Taxonomy into Multiple-Choice Examination Questions for a Pharmacotherapeutics Course. Am J Pharmaceutical Educ. 2012;76(6):1-14.

Mukherjee P, Lahiri SK. Analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs): Item and test statistics from an assessment in a medical college of Kolkata, West Bengal. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2015;1:47-52.

Dehnad A, Nasser H, Hosseini AF. A comparison between three-and four-options multiple choice questions. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;98:398-403.

Ciraj AM. Multiple Choice Questions. In Principles of Assessment in Medical Education, editors Tejinder Singh and Anshu. Jaypee Publication. 2012:88-106.