Rethinking Multiple Choice Questions: The Benefits of Few Distractors
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are common to assessments, offering a structured yet flexible way to measure knowledge and decision-making skills. However, as test developers, we constantly strive to improve both the test-taker experience and the efficiency in our processes. Over the years, test development has seen shifts in how these questions are designed, particularly in the number of answer choices. Traditionally, MCQs included four or five options, but research suggests that fewer distractors may improve time efficiency while maintaining reliability/validity (Haladyna and Downing, 2004).
As test developers, we need to consider if the conventional approach still serves the test-taker best. And, as we continue to reconsider traditional formats, it’s essential to ask: Are we designing items that truly serve our candidates? This article argues that reducing the number of distractors in MCQs improves test efficiency, cognitive clarity, fairness and item development — offering compelling reasons for test developers to alter traditional methods.
Time Efficiency and Exam Completion
Think about the last time you took a high-stakes exam. Did you find yourself debating between several answer choices? Research shows that reducing distractors can help candidates complete exams faster. Studies indicate that tests with three distractors instead of five can reduce completion time by 10-15% while maintaining accuracy (Rodriguez, 2005). Credentialing bodies such as medical licensing boards have experimented with three-option MCQs, finding that test-takers complete exams more quickly without negatively impacting pass rates (Smith and Smith, 2020). The concept of time efficiency and completion rates serve as inspiration for test developers to analyze completion times of current formats and adjust distractor quantities to optimize efficiency without a sacrifice to test integrity.
Reducing Cognitive Load for Clearer Items
Many MCQs include distractors that are obviously incorrect, adding unnecessary complexity rather than improving assessment quality. Cognitive Load Theory suggests that excessive distractors increase mental effort without enhancing learning or performance (Sweller, 1988). Research confirms that test-takers often disregard nonfunctional distractors, meaning they do not effectively contribute to assessing knowledge (Tarrant, Ware and Mohammed, 2009).
For example, the National Board of Medical Examiners reduced distractors in select exams and found that candidates demonstrated improved focus and decision-making. This shift aligns with findings that removing ineffective distractors reduces cognitive strain and test anxiety while maintaining assessment validity. If test developers focus on crafting fewer, but higher-quality, distractors, they can improve content clarity, reduce cognitive strain for candidates and create more effective assessments — a distinct advantage from the time efficiency benefits discussed earlier.
Enhancing Fairness and Accessibility
Imagine taking an exam in a second language or while managing ADHD. Reducing distractors can enhance fairness, particularly for nonnative speakers and those with cognitive processing differences. Research shows that test-takers with dyslexia or ADHD perform better when extraneous answer choices are minimized (Dunn and Dunn, 2007). In response, some licensing organizations have revised MCQs to ensure accessibility, aligning with universal design principles (Epstein, 2012). The principles of inclusive test design speak for itself, but its benefits extend beyond fairness. More inclusive testing provides a foundation for equitable evaluations, to ensure that all candidates have the same opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge.
Subject Matter Expert (SME) Perspective: Streamlining Item Development
For the test developers who have written MCQs, we know that crafting plausible distractors can be one of the most challenging parts of test development. Studies indicate that nonfunctioning distractors — those rarely chosen — add little value while increasing development time (Tarrant et al., 2009). The American Board of Nursing transitioned to three-option MCQs and reported that SMEs could focus on creating higher-quality questions rather than meeting an arbitrary distractor quota (Rodriguez, 2005). The idea of easing workload on SMEs sounds appealing, and, even more, the streamlined process of distractor requirements can even enhance the quality of assessment items!
Practical Recommendations for Test Developers
Having explored the rationale behind reducing distractors in MCQs, it's now crucial to translate these insights into practice. Below are some practical recommendations for test developers looking to implement these concepts in their own programs.
- Analyze Item Performance Data
Use statistical analysis to identify distractors that are rarely selected and evaluate whether they can be removed without compromising validity. Test developers may want to collaborate with a psychometrician to guide this process, ensuring that data-driven decisions are made. - Pilot Fewer-Distractor MCQs
Conduct pilot tests using three-option MCQs to assess the effects on completion time and candidate experience. This could involve offering a discounted test fee or selecting a predetermined group of participants who take the test without receiving formal results. The goal is to understand how fewer distractors impact test-takers. - Prioritize High-Quality Distractors
Focus on plausibility and relevance rather than quantity to maintain the rigor of the assessment. Quality distractors are critical for assessing knowledge accurately without adding unnecessary complexity for the test-taker. - Consider Test-Taker Demographics
Adapt MCQ formats to support diverse populations and ensure accessibility. Adjusting item formats, simplifying language and reducing cognitive load can help create a fairer testing environment for all candidates, especially for those with learning differences or nonnative language backgrounds. - Collaborate with SMEs
Engage item writers and subject matter experts (SMEs) during item development to balance content validity with practical constraints. For newly created items, SMEs should focus on crafting high-quality content. For previously tested items, SMEs should review distractors to ensure that nonfunctional distractors are removed, streamlining the process and improving item quality.
Reducing Distractors, Saving Time
As test developers, we have a responsibility to balance efficiency, fairness and validity. Reflecting on my own experience in test development, I’ve seen firsthand how reducing the number of distractors in MCQs can significantly enhance both the candidate experience and the item development process. For example, when I made the decision to switch to three-option MCQs in a previous project, I was initially concerned about the impact on test integrity. However, I quickly found that candidates appreciated the faster completion times and the streamlined process gave our SMEs more time to focus on crafting higher-quality questions.
Moreover, reducing distractors not only benefits candidates but also provides clear advantages for test developers and SMEs. By eliminating nonfunctional distractors, SMEs can spend less time managing irrelevant options and more time crafting questions that truly assess the target content. This leads to a more efficient development process and higher-quality assessments.
Reducing distractors can improve time efficiency, lower cognitive load and enhance fairness all while maintaining test validity. The points above provide evidence and support the adoption of three-option MCQs in many contexts. By leveraging data-driven approaches and SME insights, we can create more effective and equitable assessments that truly serve both our candidates and the professionals who develop these exams.
References
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (2007). Learning styles and assessment design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 120-135.
Epstein, R. (2012). The theory and practice of multiple-choice testing in legal education. Journal of Legal Education, 62(1), 1-25.
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 193-210.
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.
Smith, J., & Smith, R. (2020). Evaluating the impact of multiple-choice question formats on test performance. Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 28(3), 45-60.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Tarrant, M., Ware, J., & Mohammed, A. M. (2009). An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: A descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Education, 9(1), 1-8.
Did you enjoy this article? I.C.E. provides education, networking and other resources for individuals who work in and serve the credentialing industry. Learn about the benefits of joining I.C.E. today. And if you enjoyed, share this article with a friend or on your social media page.