Qualité psychométrique des QCM du concours de résidanat à la Faculté de médecine de Batna : Un outil d’amélioration des pratiques docimologiques
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v104i05.6612Mots-clés :
MCQ, residency exam, psychometrics, difficulty index, discrimination indexRésumé
Introduction: L’analyse psychométrique des QCM est une étape essentielle dans le processus d’évaluation. Elle permet de vérifier la validité et la fiabilité des items des QCM. Le concours de résidanat constitue un passage clé dans la formation médicale, visant à sélectionner les futurs médecins capables de répondre aux exigences cliniques et scientifiques. Notre objectif est d’identifier les caractéristiques psychométriques des
QCM du concours de résidanat de médecine.
Méthode: 150 QCM ont été analysés à l’issue des épreuves du concours de résidanat de médecine session d’octobre 2025. Les épreuves ont inclus 410 candidats. Cette analyse a porté sur l’indice de difficulté (DIF I), l’indice de discrimination (DI) et le coefficient de l’alpha Cronbach.
Résultats: 78 (52 %) des QCM, présentaient un niveau de difficulté recommandé/acceptable, avec un DIF I moyen de 43± 2,03. 45 (30 %) étaient trop difficiles. 97 items (64 %) présentaient un DI entre excellent à acceptable et 40 (26 %) sont à rejeter, avec un DI moyen global de 0,325±
0,017. Une corrélation modérée et statistiquement significative a été observée entre le DIF I et le DI (r=0,36, p<0,01). La fiabilité des items, alpha de Cronbach, était satisfaisante (0,84).
Conclusion: Notre étude nous a permis d’identifier les QCM de qualité pouvant être intégrés à la banque de questions pour les évaluations futures, ainsi que les QCM nécessitant une révision. Cette rigueur dans l’analyse garantit la validité et la fiabilité des évaluations. Elle garantit une sélection rigoureuse conforme aux exigences académiques et pratiques.
Téléchargements
Références
Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New England journal of medicine. 2007;356(4):387-96.
Adams NE. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2015;103(3):152.
Witheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller’s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and
diagnostic reasoning. International Journal of Medical Education. 2019;10:191.
Abey Abraham Joy, Neethu Soman, HymaV, Jiyo Chacko, Sujatha M.B., Sreelakshmi Venugopal. Item Analysis of Multiple-
Choice Questions Using Difficulty and Discrimination Indices International Journal of Life Sciences, Biotechnology and Pharma
Research;2025;14(9).
Mohammed OEAH, Srinivasamurthy SK, Bhat R, Alhassan Eltahir YAM, Hamdy Elshamly HA, Mohammed F, Hamad B. Postgraduate
Clinical Residency: The Impact of Multiple-Choice Question Quality on Exam Success Rates. Advances in Medical Education and
Practice. 2025:1381-97.
Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach's alpha. Leisure sciences. 2017;39(2):163-73.
Eleragi A, Miskeen E, Hussein K, Rezigalla AA, Adam MI, Al-Faifi JA, et al. Evaluating the multiple-choice questions quality at the
College of Medicine, University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia: a three-year experience. BMC Medical Education. 2025;25(1):233.
Mirbahai L, Adie J. Applying the utility index to review single best answer questions in medical education assessment. Archives of
Epidemiology and Public Health. 2020;1:1-5.
Yahia AIO. Post-validation item analysis to assess the validity and reliability of multiple-choice questions at a medical college with an
innovative curriculum. Natl Med J India. 2021;34(6):359-62.
Newton, P.E. (2013), Two Kinds of Argument? Journal of Educational Measurement, 50: 105-109.
11. Date AP, Borkar AS, Badwaik RT, Siddiqui RA, Shende TR, Dashputra AV. Item analysis as tool to validate multiple choice
question bank in pharmacology. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2019;8(9):1999-2003.
Pande SS, Pande SR, Parate VR, Nikam AP, Agrekar SH. Correlation between difficulty & discrimination indices of MCQs in formative
exam in Physiology. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education. 2013;7(1).
Guedjati MR, Bouhidel OJ, Benaldjia H, Derdous C. The Medical Residency Examination in the Era of the Overhaul of Medical Study
Programs, a Call for Reform. Reflections for New Docimological Orientations. Acta Scientific Medical Sciences. 2024 May 1;63–8.
Van Der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Medical education.
;39(3):309-17.
Patil VC, Patil HV. Item analysis of medicine multiple choice questions (MCQs) for under graduate (3rd year MBBS) students.
Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2015;6(3):1242-51.
National Board of Medical Examiners. NBME Item-Writing Guide: Constructing Written Test Questions for the Health Sciences.
National Board of Medical Examiners; 2024.
Mitra NK, Chitra E, Wong PS, Sow CF, Binti Abd Razak SS, Er HM, Nadarajah VD. Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges
in Health Professions Education. International E-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education. 2023;17(3).
Kelley TL. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of educational psychology. 1939;30(1):17.
Christian DS, Prajapati AC, Rana BM, Dave VR. Evaluation of multiple choice questions using item analysis tool: a study from
a medical institute of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017;4(6):1876-81.
Zubairi NA, AlAhmadi TS, Ibrahim MH, Hegazi MA, Gadi FU. Effective use of Item Analysis to improve the Reliability and Validity
of Undergraduate Medical Examinations: Evaluating the same exam over many years: A different approach. Pakistan Journal of
Medical Sciences. 2025;41(3):810.
Gebremichael MW, Baraki B, Mehari M-A, Assalfew B. Item analysis of multiple choice questions from assessment of health sciences
students, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Medical Education. 2025;25(1):441.
Wrzesińska MA, Rakoczy J, Binder-Olibrowska KW, Kostyła M, Allott VE, Harris SR, et al. Comparing structured note-taking and multiple-
choice question writing as learning strategies among physiotherapy students. BMC Medical Education. 2025;25(1):1665.
Srisomsak V, Sitticharoon C, Keadkraichaiwat I, Meethes S, Inpaen I. Detection of flawed multiple-choice questions in preclinical
medical education using item difficulty and discrimination indices: a six-year analysis. BMC Medical Education. 2025.
Hwang R, Paley M, Bull D, Omrani O, Vergara-Jalandoni D, Egbury G. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Peer-
Made MCQ Question-Bank Usage on Summative Assessments in Medical Education. Journal of Advances in Medical Education &
Professionalism. 2025;13(4):259.
Rahim AFA, Simok AA, Wahab SFA. A Guide for Writing Single Best Answer Questions to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills Based on
Learning Outcomes. Education in Medicine Journal. 2022;14(2).
Oc Y, Hassen H. Comparing the effectiveness of multiple-answer and single-answer multiple-choice questions in assessing student
learning. Marketing Education Review. 2025;35(1):44-57.
Kwa SK, Tan CW, Ng AC, Mobarak SMAS, Selamat HA. Recommendations and tips for passing the key feature problem
examination. Malaysian Family Physician: the Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia. 2022;17(2):2.
Guedjati MR. Le concours de résidanat de médecine, peut-il servir à autre chose qu’au classement des candidats ? Oral Communication
Pédagogie Médicale 10 S25-S67 (2009)
Uyanah DA, Nsikhe U. The theoretical and empirical equivalence of Cronbach alpha and Kuder-Richardson formular-20 reliability
coefficients. International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology. 2023;7(5):17.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.
Edelsbrunner PA, Simonsmeier BA, Schneider M. The Cronbach’s alpha of domain-specific knowledge tests before and after learning:
A meta-analysis of published studies. Educational Psychology Review. 2025;37(1):4.
Kumar D, Jaipurkar R, Shekhar A, Sikri G, Srinivas V. Item analysis of multiple choice questions: A quality assurance test
for an assessment tool. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2021;77:S85-S9.
Desy J, Harvey A, Weeks S, Busche KD, Martin K, Paget M, et al. The impact of systematically repairing multiple choice questions with
low discrimination on assessment reliability: an interrupted time series analysis. Canadian Medical Education Journal. 2024;15(3):52-6.
Lertsakulbunlue S, Kantiwong A. Development and validation of immediate self-feedback very short answer questions for medicalstudents: practical implementation of generalizability theory to estimate reliability in formative examination designs. BMC Medical
Education. 2024;24(1):572.
Mustafa, S., Hamid, O.E. Psychometric item/question analysis of multiple-choice questions in fixed prosthodontics exam. BMC Med
Educ (2025).
Fichiers supplémentaires
Publiée
Licence
Merci de créditer les auteurs lors de toute citation : La Tunisie Médicale (2026)
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
