Item statistics derived from three-option versions of multiple-choice questions are usually as robust as four- or five-option versions: implications for exam design.

Different versions of multiple-choice exams were administered to an undergraduate class in human physiology as part of normal testing in the classroom. The goal was to evaluate whether the number of options (possible answers) per question influenced the effectiveness of this assessment. Three exams (each with three versions) were given to each of two sections during an academic quarter. All versions were equally long, with 30 questions: 10 questions with 3 options, 10 questions with 4, and 10 questions with 5 (always one correct answer plus distractors). Each question appeared in all three versions of an exam, with a different number of options in each version (three, four, or five). Discrimination (point biserial and upper-lower discrimination indexes) and difficulty were evaluated for each question. There was a small increase in difficulty (a lower average score on a question) when more options were provided. The upper-lower discrimination index indicated a small improvement in assessment of student learning with more options, although the point biserial did not. The total length of a question (number of words) was associated with a small increase in discrimination and difficulty, independent of the number of options. Quantitative questions were more likely to show an increase in discrimination with more options than nonquantitative questions, but this effect was very small. Therefore, for these testing conditions, there appears to be little advantage in providing more than three options per multiple-choice question, and there are disadvantages, such as needing more time for an exam.

[1]  J. Grier,et al.  THE NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OPTIMUM TEST RELIABILITY , 1975 .

[2]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications , 1993 .

[3]  T. Haladyna Developing and validating multiple-choice test items, 3rd ed. , 2004 .

[4]  What's Wrong with Three-Option Multiple Choice Items? , 1987 .

[5]  D. Treagust Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science , 1988 .

[6]  R. Landrum,et al.  More Evidence in Favor of Three-Option Multiple-Choice Tests , 1993 .

[7]  Robert L. Ebel,et al.  Expected Reliability as a Function of Choices Per Item , 1969 .

[8]  R. L. Ebel,et al.  Essentials of educational measurement , 1972 .

[9]  T. Haladyna,et al.  How Many Options is Enough for a Multiple-Choice Test Item? , 1993 .

[10]  R. Brennan A Generalized Upper-Lower Item Discrimination Index , 1972 .

[11]  F. Costin The Optimal Number of Alternatives in Multiple-Choice Achievement Tests: Some Empirical Evidence for a Mathematical Proof , 1970 .

[12]  The Effects of the Number of Options per Item and Student Ability on Test Validity and Reliability , 1991 .

[13]  Michael C. Rodriguez Three Options Are Optimal for Multiple‐Choice Items: A Meta‐Analysis of 80 Years of Research , 2005 .

[14]  M. Tarrant,et al.  A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. , 2010, Nurse education today.

[15]  T. Haladyna,et al.  Validity of a Taxonomy of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Rules. , 1989 .

[16]  W. Todd Rogers,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Three-and Four-Choice Items and Tests: Susceptibility to Testwiseness and Internal Consistency Reliability , 1999 .

[17]  Dennis Doverspike,et al.  THREE‐ALTERNATIVE MULTIPLE CHOICE TESTS: AN ATTRACTIVE OPTION , 1994 .

[18]  Frederic M. Lord,et al.  OPTIMAL NUMBER OF CHOICES PER ITEM— A COMPARISON OF FOUR APPROACHES* , 1977 .

[19]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  The Relation between Incorrect Option Choice and Estimated Ability , 1983 .

[20]  D. Swanson,et al.  Comparison of items in five‐option and extended‐matching formats for assessment of diagnostic skills , 1994, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[21]  James Ware,et al.  A Framework for Improving the Quality of Multiple-Choice Assessments , 2012, Nurse educator.

[22]  Estimating the Optimum Number of Options Per Item Using an Incremental Option Paradigm , 1994 .

[23]  Gregory J. Cizek,et al.  Further Investigation of Nonfunctioning Options in Multiple-Choice Test Items , 1994 .

[24]  On the optimal number of alternatives at a choice point , 1964 .

[25]  B. Grier The optimal number of alternatives at a choice point with travel time considered , 1976 .

[26]  Three-Choice Versus Four-Choice Items: Implications for Reliability and Validity Of Objective Achievement Tests1 , 1972 .