Publication:
Item Analysis and Evaluation in the Examinations in the Faculty of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University

dc.authorscopusid8639397400
dc.authorscopusid12752758300
dc.contributor.authorTomak, L.
dc.contributor.authorBek, Y.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:46:57Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:46:57Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Tomak] Leman, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Ondokuz Mayis University, Medical School, Samsun, Turkey; [Bek] Yüksel, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Ondokuz Mayis University, Medical School, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Item analysis is an effective method in the evaluation of multiple-choice achievement tests. This study aimed to compare the classical and the latent class models used in item analysis, as well as their efficacy in the evaluation of the examinations of the medical faculty. Materials and Methods: The achievement tests in the medical faculty were evaluated using different methods. The two methods used were the classical and the latent class models. Among the classical methods, Cronbach's alpha, split half methods, item discrimination, and item difficulty was investigated. On the other hand, various models of item response theory (IRT) and their statistics were compared in the group of latent class methods. Results: Reliability statistics had values above 0.87. Item no. 7 was found easy, item no. 45 difficult and item no. 64 fairly difficult according to the evaluations done by classical and item response theories. In terms of item discrimination, item no. 45 had lower, item no. 7 had middle and item no. 64 had high discrimination levels. The distribution graph shows that personal abilities are good enough to tick the correct choice. Conclusion: In this study, similar results were obtained by classical and latent methods. IRT can be considered perfect at a mathematical level, and if its assumptions are satisfied, it can easily perform assessments and measurements for most types of complex problems. Classical theory is easy to understand and to apply, while IRT is, on the contrary, sometimes rather difficult to understand and to implement.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4103/1119-3077.151720
dc.identifier.endpage394en_US
dc.identifier.issn1119-3077
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25772924
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84925815327
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage387en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.151720
dc.identifier.volume18en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000351753800016
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer Medknow Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofNigerian Journal of Clinical Practiceen_US
dc.relation.journalNigerian Journal of Clinical Practiceen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectClassical Test Theoryen_US
dc.subjectItem Analysisen_US
dc.subjectItem Difficultyen_US
dc.subjectItem Discriminationen_US
dc.subjectItem Response Theoryen_US
dc.subjectReliabilityen_US
dc.titleItem Analysis and Evaluation in the Examinations in the Faculty of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis Universityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files