References

Abozaid, H., Park, Y. S., & Tekian, A. (2017). Peer review improves psychometric characteristics of multi-choice questions. Medical Teacher, 39(S1), S50–S54. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.125473Search in Google Scholar

Anderson Hicks, N. (2011). Guidelines for identifying and revising culturally biased multiple-choice nursing examination items. Nurse Educator, 36(6), 266–270. doi:10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182333ca6Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, P. H., Mossey, S., Moroso, S., Duff Cloutier, J. D., & Love, A. (2012). Implications of multiple-choice testing in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 32(6), e40–4. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.09.011Search in Google Scholar

Boland, R. R. J., Lester, N. A., & Williams, E. (2010). Writing multiple choice questions. Academic Psychiatry, 34(4), 310–316. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.34.4.310Search in Google Scholar

Brady, A. M. (2005). Assessment of learning with multiple-choice questions. Nurse Education in Practice, 5(4), 238–242. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2004.12.005Search in Google Scholar

Bruno, J. E., & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 959–966. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055006004Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, D. E. (2011). How to write good multiple-choice questions. Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health, 47(6), 322–325. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02115.xSearch in Google Scholar

Cizek, G. J., & O’Day, D. M. (1994). Further investigations of nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 241–247. doi:10.1177/0013164494054004002Search in Google Scholar

Crehan, K. D., Haladyna, T. M., & Brewer, B. W. (1993). Use of an inclusive option and the optimal number of options for multiple-choice items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 241–247. doi:10.1177/0013164493053001027Search in Google Scholar

Dehnad, A., Nasser, H., & Hosseini, A. F. (2014). A comparison between three-and four-option multiple choice questions. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 398–403. doi:10.1016j.sbspro.2014.03.432Search in Google Scholar

Dickinson, M. (2011). Writing multiple-choice questions for higher-level thinking. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/804/writing-multiple-choice-questions-for-higher-level-thinkingSearch in Google Scholar

Downing, S. M. (2005). The effects of violating standard item-writing principles on tests and students: The consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. Advances in Health Science Education, 10(2), 133–143. doi:10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, B. D., Arthur, W., & Bruce, L. L. (2012). The three-option format for knowledge and ability multiple-choice tests: A case for why it should be more commonly used in personnel testing. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 20(1), 65–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00580.xSearch in Google Scholar

Farley, J. K. (1989). The multiple-choice test: Developing the test blue-print. Nurse Educator, 14(5), 3–5. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000672Search in Google Scholar

Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1082–1116. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317726529Search in Google Scholar

Gierl, M. J., Lai, H., Pugh, D., Touchie, C., Boulais, A. P., & De Champlain, A. (2016). Evaluating the psychometric characteristics of generated multiple-choice test items. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(3), 196–210. doi:10.1080/08957347.2016.1171768Search in Google Scholar

Haladyna, R. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurements in Education, 15(3), 309–334. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5Search in Google Scholar

Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1988). Functional distracters: Implications for test-item writing and test design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Search in Google Scholar

Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37–50. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0201_3Search in Google Scholar

Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 999–1010. doi:10.1177/0013164493053004013Search in Google Scholar

Hijji, B. M. (2017). Flaws of multiple choice questions in teacher-constructed nursing examination: A pilot descriptive study. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(8), 490–496. doi:10.3928/01484834-20170712-08Search in Google Scholar

Kilgour, J. M., & Tayyaba, S. (2016). An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams. Advances in Health Science Education, 21, 571–585. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9652-7Search in Google Scholar

Lee, H., & Winke, P. (2012). The differences among three-, four-, and five-option-item formats in the context of a high-stakes English-language listening test. Language Testing, 30(1), 99–123. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532212451235Search in Google Scholar

Leung, S. F., Mok, E., & Wong, D. (2008). The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 28(6), 711–719. doi:https:doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Little, J., & Bjork, E. (2015). Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 14–26. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0452-8Search in Google Scholar

March, A. L., & Robinson, C. (2015). Assessment of high-stakes testing, hopeful thinking, and goal orientation among baccalaureate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 12(1), 1–7. doi:10.1515/ijnes-2014-0075Search in Google Scholar

National Council of State Boards of Nursing (2017). NCLEX and other exams. Retrieved from https://www.ncsbn.org/nclex.htmSearch in Google Scholar

Nwadinigwe, P. I., & Naibi, L. (2013). The number of options in a multiple-choice test item and the psychometric characteristics. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(28), 189–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.7176/JEPSearch in Google Scholar

Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2014). Evaluation and testing in nursing education. New York, NY: Spring Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Papenberg, M., & Musch, J. (2017). Of small beauties and large beasts: The quality of distractors on multiple-choice tests is more important than their quantity. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(4), 273–286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1353987Search in Google Scholar

Piasentin, K. A. (2010). Exploring the optimal number of options in multiple-choice testing. Clear Exam Review, XXI(1), 18–22.Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, M. R., Stevens, C., & Bucak, S. D. (2019). The optimal number of options for multiple-choice questions on high-stakes tests: Application of a revised index for detecting nonfunctional distractors. Advances in Health Science Education, 24(1), 141–150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9855-9Search in Google Scholar

Redmond, S. P., Hartigan-Rogers, J. A., & Cobbett, S. (2012). High time for a change: Psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 9(1), 1–16. doi:10.1515/1548-923X.2487Search in Google Scholar

Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13.10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.xSearch in Google Scholar

Rogausch, A., Hofer, R., & Krebs, R. (2010). Rarely selected distracters in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: A simulation and survey. BMC Medical Education, 10(85), 1–9. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-85Search in Google Scholar

Royal, K. D., & Stockdale, M. R. (2017). The impact of 3-option responses to multiple-choice questions on guessing strategies and cut score determinations. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(2), 84–89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346173/Search in Google Scholar

Rudner, L. M. (2010). Implementing the graduate management admission test computerized adaptive test. In W. Van Der Linden & C. Glas (Eds.), Elements of adaptive testing (pp.151–165). New York, NY: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Schneid, S. D., Armour, C., Park, Y. S., Yudkowsky, R., & Bordage, G. (2014). Reducing the number of options on multiple-choice questions: Response time, psychometrics and standard setting. Medical Education, 48(10), 1020–1027. doi:10.1111/medu.12525Search in Google Scholar

Seinhorst, G. (2008). Are three options better than four? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.natobilc.org/documents/Projects/MChoicesreadingtestSTUDY.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., Yashima, T., & Yoshizawa, K. (2006). A comparison of three- and four-option English tests for university entrance selection purposes in Japan. Language Testing, 23(1), 35–57. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt319oaSearch in Google Scholar

Sidick, J. T., Barret, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (1994). Three-alternative multiple choice tests: An attractive option. Personal Psychology, 47(4), 829–835. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01579.xSearch in Google Scholar

Su, W., Osisek, P. J., Montgomery, C., & Pellar, S. (2009). Designing multiple-choice test items at higher cognitive levels. Nurse Educator, 34(5), 223–227. doi:10.1097?NNE.0b013e3181b2b546Search in Google Scholar

Tarrant, M., Knierim, A., Hayes, S., & Ware, J. (2006). The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Education in Practice, 6(6), 354–363. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2006.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2008). Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments. Medical Education, 42(2), 198–206. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.xSearch in Google Scholar

Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2010). A comparison of the psychometric properties of three-and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today, 30(8), 539–543. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002Search in Google Scholar

Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2012). A framework for improving the quality of multiple-choice assessments. Nurse Educator, 37(3), 98–104. doi:10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182504ld0Search in Google Scholar

Thanyapa, I., & Currie, M. (2014). The number of options in multiple choice items in language test: Does it make any difference? Language Testing in Asia, 4(8), 1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-014-0008-7Search in Google Scholar

Trevisan, M. S., Sax, G., & Michael, W. B. (1991). The effects of the number of options per item and student ability on test validity and reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4), 829–837. doi:10.1177/001316449105100404Search in Google Scholar

Vegada, B., Shukla, A., Khilnani, A., Charan, J., & Desai, C. (2016). Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 48(5), 571–575. doi:10.4103/0253-7613.190757Search in Google Scholar

Vyas, R., & Supe, A. (2008). Multiple-choice questions: A literature review on the optimal number of options. The National Medical Journal of India, 21(3), 130–133. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19004145Search in Google Scholar

Ware, J., & Vik, T. (2009). Quality assurance of item writing: During the introduction of questions in medicine for high stakes examinations. Medical Teacher, 31(3), 238–243. doi:10.1080/01421590802155597Search in Google Scholar