Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Professional Multiple-Choice Exams

Multiple-choice exams are frequently utilized in professional certification due to their scalability and ability to measure knowledge objectively. However, the development of such exams requires careful attention to maintain their validity and reliability. Despite best efforts, certain common pitfalls can undermine an exam’s effectiveness. This article discusses the five most critical pitfalls, their potential impacts, and strategies for avoidance.

Pitfalls in Multiple Choice Exams

Ambiguity

Ambiguity in multiple-choice exams is a common pitfall that can often be overlooked, particularly when examiners have a clear preconceived notion of the correct answer. In such cases, examiners may unintentionally neglect to consider alternative perspectives, leading to questions or choices that are unclear or have the potential for multiple correct answers. This oversight can have detrimental effects on the exam’s validity and fairness.

To address this issue, examiners must approach question development with an open mindset and consider different interpretations or viewpoints that test takers may have. By acknowledging and addressing potential ambiguities, examiners can ensure that each question has one unambiguously correct answer. This can be achieved through a thorough review and refinement of question-wording, considering various perspectives and providing clarity and specificity in the language used.

For example, when revising the question “Which of the following elements is heavier? Hydrogen, Oxygen, or Nitrogen?” to the more precise version “Which of the following elements has the greatest atomic weight?: Hydrogen, Oxygen, or Nitrogen?”, the examiner demonstrates a conscious effort to eliminate ambiguity by providing a specific criterion for determining the correct answer. This approach acknowledges the potential for different interpretations. It avoids favoring a single perspective, thus enhancing the fairness and validity of the exam.

Poorly Constructed Distractors

Distractors, the incorrect choices presented in multiple-choice questions, significantly impact the assessment of candidates’ knowledge. Poorly constructed distractors can hinder the effectiveness of exams by being implausible, obviously incorrect, or irrelevant, thereby failing to differentiate between knowledgeable and less knowledgeable individuals effectively.

Attention should be paid to several key factors to ensure the quality of distractors. First, it is crucial to create plausible distractors that reflect common misconceptions or errors associated with the topic. This helps to challenge the understanding of test takers and effectively discriminate between different levels of knowledge.

Additionally, avoiding distractors that are obviously incorrect or irrelevant to the question is essential. These distractors do not contribute to assessing candidates’ understanding and can introduce biases or confusion.

For example, consider the following question: “What is the capital of France? A) Tokyo B) Paris C) Chocolate D) Triangle.” In this case, the distractors “Tokyo” and “Chocolate” are implausible and irrelevant choices that do not reflect common misconceptions or errors related to the capital of France. Instead, a more practical approach would be to provide distractors that align with potential misunderstandings, such as “Brussels,” “Lyon,” or “Geneva.”

Combining choices and stems

Combining problem statements and choices in a single stem is a practice that should be avoided in professional multiple-choice exams. This approach, where the problem statement and choices are presented together, can lead to unnecessary cognitive load and confusion for test-takers. For instance, consider the following example of a question that combines a problem with choices:

Which three of the following are the building elements of a successful answer? (1) an item that makes sense (2) a relatively good item (3) an item that doesn’t work well or (4) the perfect item a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 1, 3, 4

In this format, test-takers must navigate through the stem and choices simultaneously, which can increase cognitive load and impede their ability to select the correct options. A more coherent and effective approach involves presenting the problem statement and choices separately, allowing candidates to focus solely on evaluating the provided options.

Not using anatomic choices

As discussed before, when designing multiple-choice questions, it is crucial to structure them to minimize cognitive load and ensure a focused evaluation of the candidate’s knowledge. One common pitfall to the use of non-atomic choices. This means that each choice contains multiple options within it. This approach unnecessarily complicates the question and adds an extra burden on the candidate. Consider the following question:

What are the three elements of a successful answer? a) a correct item, something else that is correct, an incorrect item b) something that is correct, a different incorrect item, a correct item c) an incorrect item, a correct item, a really incorrect item d) a correct item, yet another correct item, something else that is correct

These choices are not atomic; i.e., each contains three choices. A question like this creates an unnecessary cognitive load for the candidate. In most exams (although not all), we want to be focused on evaluating the candidate’s knowledge. In that case, our questions should be focused on that and don’t add extra load, which may harm their performance.

A better way of forming the sample question above is this:

What are the elements of a successful answer? (select THREE choices) a) a correct item b) an incorrect item c) something else that is correct d) a different incorrect item e) something that is correct f) a really incorrect item g) yet another correct item

In this setup, each choice is one item, and the candidate can easily browse them and decide about the correctness of each choice separately, only using their knowledge and no extra effort on combining them.

When a question is formed like this, and later analysis shows that it’s too easy, we can replace “select THREE choices” with “select multiple choices”, and demand more from the candidate.

Some people prefer the first non-atomic form because the traditional examination platforms don’t support them. If your platform supports multiple-answer questions, it’s best to use them. An advantage of the first form is that it creates uniform questions. When having a mixture of single-answer and multiple-answer questions, some candidates miss the point and select only one choice instead of multiple choices. This risk can be lowered by using proper signals in the user interface, but a small portion remains. However, this slight risk is preferable to having the extra cognitive load of using compound choices.

How to avoid these pitfalls?

To address and mitigate the common pitfalls discussed earlier, continuous monitoring and improvement of the exam are essential. The exam development process doesn’t end with the initial creation of questions. Still, it requires ongoing evaluation and refinement based on statistical analysis and feedback from test-takers.

By monitoring the answers and analyzing statistical information, exam administrators can gain insights into the performance of individual questions and the overall exam. This data can reveal patterns of confusion, identify questions that are too easy or too difficult, and highlight areas where ambiguity or bias may exist.

For instance, statistical analysis may uncover questions with many incorrect responses or questions where test-takers consistently select specific distractors. These findings indicate potential issues that need to be addressed. Similarly, feedback from test-takers, either through formal channels or post-exam surveys, can provide valuable insights into areas of confusion or concerns about question clarity.

Exam administrators can use this information to make data-driven decisions for improving the exam. They can revise questions that are consistently answered incorrectly or adjust the difficulty level of the exam by modifying the number of correct options or the complexity of the questions. Additionally, feedback from test-takers can help identify potential biases in the exam content or language and guide efforts to eliminate them.

Conclusion

Designing professional multiple-choice exams requires careful attention to avoid common pitfalls that can undermine the validity and effectiveness of the assessment. This article has discussed several critical pitfalls, including ambiguity, poorly constructed distractors, combining problem statements with choices, and using non-atomic choices. Exam administrators should approach question development with an open mindset to avoid these pitfalls, consider different perspectives, and ensure clarity and specificity in question-wording. Furthermore, continuous monitoring and improvement of the exam are crucial. By analyzing statistical information and gathering feedback from test-takers, administrators can identify areas of improvement, address issues of confusion or bias, and make data-driven decisions to enhance the exam’s quality and fairness. An exam should never be considered finished but rather an ongoing refinement and optimization process to ensure its validity and reliability.