Five-Option vs Four-Option Multiple-Choice Questions

  • bartholomeus budiyono ukwms


Abstract: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) may provide test takers with three, four, or five options and are appreciated for reliability and economic scoring. Five-option MCQs demand much more energy, experience, time, and expertise and may probably be considered to be more difficult four-option and three-option MCQs. Previous studies involved a great number of questions and participants. This study investigated the difference between five-option and four-option MCQs through deletion of non-functioning distracters (NFDs) in proportion to a classroom-based test by administering 28 MCQs to two intact classes of 34 participants. The results show that there was significant difference in participants’ scores (p 0.030< 0.05), significant difference in the number of NFDs (p 0.01<0.05), no significant difference in item facility (p 0.485>0.05), and significant difference in item discrimination (p 0.01<0.05).   Classroom teachers are free to choose either the 5-option or 4-option version, depending on the purpose of the test.


Key words: five-option, four-option, non-functioning distractor


Download data is not yet available.


Dehnad, A., Nasser, H., & Hosseini, A. F. (2014). A Comparison between Three-and Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 398–403.

Gronlund, N. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation ofEnglish selfin Teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Hingorjo, M. R., & Jaleel, F. (2012). Analysis of one-best MCQs: The difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor efficiency. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62(2), 142–147.

Kilgour, J. M., & Tayyaba, S. (2016). An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 571–585.

Panczyk, M et al. (2014). Comparison of four- and five-option multiple-choice questions in nursing entrance tests. ICERI: Proceedings.

Rahma, N. A. A., Shamad, M. M. A., Idris, M. E. A., Elfaki, O. A., Elfakey, W. E. M., & Salih, K. M. A. (2017). Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple-choice questions. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 287–291.

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.

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.

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.

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), 40.

Vyas, R., & Supe, A. (2008). Multiple choice questions: A literature review of the optimal number of options. The National Medical Journal of India, 21(3), 130–133.

How to Cite
budiyono bartholomeus (2019) “Five-Option vs Four-Option Multiple-Choice Questions”, IJET (Indonesian Journal of English Teaching), 8(2), pp. 1-7. doi: 10.15642/ijet2.2019.8.2.1-7.