We present a simple technique for evaluating multiple-choice questions and their answers beyond the usual measures of difficulty and the effectiveness of distractors. The technique involves the construction and qualitative consideration of item response curves and is based on item response theory from the field of education measurement. To demonstrate the technique, we apply item response curve analysis to three questions from the Force Concept Inventory. Item response curve analysis allows us to characterize qualitatively whether these questions are efficient, where efficient is defined in terms of the construction, performance, and discrimination of a question and its answer choices. This technique can be used to develop future multiple-choice examination questions and a better understanding of results from existing diagnostic instruments.

1.
L. C.
McDermott
and
E. F.
Redish
, “
Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics education research
,”
Am. J. Phys.
67
,
64
74
(
1999
).
2.
D.
Hestenes
,
M.
Wells
, and
G.
Swackhamer
, “
Force concept inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
158
(
1992
).
3.
D.
Hestenes
and
M.
Wells
, “
A mechanics baseline test
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
159
166
(
1992
).
4.
R. J.
Beichner
, “
Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs
,”
Am. J. Phys.
62
,
750
762
(
1994
).
5.
R. K.
Thornton
and
D. R.
Sokoloff
, “
Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
338
352
(
1998
).
6.
S.
Yao
and
M.
Zadnak
, “
Introductory thermal concept evaluation: Assessing students" understanding
,”
Phys. Teach.
39
,
496
504
(
2001
).
7.
D. P.
Maloney
,
T. L.
O’Kuma
,
C.
Hieggelke
, and
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “
Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
S12
S23
(
2001
).
8.
C.
Singh
and
D.
Rosengrant
, “
Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts
,”
Am. J. Phys.
71
,
607
617
(
2003
).
9.
P.
Vetter Englehart
and
R. J.
Beichner
, “
Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits
,”
Am. J. Phys.
72
,
98
115
(
2004
).
10.
H. K.
Suen
,
Principles of Test Theories
(
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
,
Hillsdale, NJ
,
1990
).
11.
L.
Crocker
and
J.
Algina
,
Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory
(
Holt Reinhard and Winston
,
New York
,
1986
).
12.
R. K.
Hambleton
,
H.
Swaminathan
, and
H. J.
Rogers
,
Fundamentals of Item Response Theory
(
Sage Publications
,
Thousand Oaks, CA
,
1991
).
13.
F.
Drasgow
,
M. V.
Levine
,
S.
Tsien
,
B.
Williams
, and
A. D.
Mead
, “
Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple-choice tests
,”
Appl. Psychol. Meas.
19
,
143
165
(
1995
).
14.
R. D.
Bock
, “
Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories
,”
Psychometrika
37
,
29
51
(
1972
).
15.
F.
Samejima
,
A new family of models for the multiple-choice item
, No. 79-4,
University of Tennessee
, Knoxville, TN,
1979
.
16.
D.
Thissen
and
L.
Steinberg
, “
A response model for multiple choice items
,”
Psychometrika
49
,
501
519
(
1984
).
17.
D.
Thissen
and
L.
Steinberg
, “
A taxonomy of item response models
,”
Psychometrika
51
,
567
577
(
1986
).
18.
R. K.
Hambleton
, “
Principles and selected applications of item response theory
,” in
Educational Measurement
, 3rd ed., edited by
R. L.
Linn
(
Macmillan
,
New York
,
1989
), pp.
147
200
.
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.