Literature DB >> 10353288

Patients don't present with five choices: an alternative to multiple-choice tests in assessing physicians' competence.

J J Veloski1, H K Rabinowitz, M R Robeson, P R Young.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate an open-ended, computer-scored testing format designed to overcome certain limitations of multiple-choice questions.
METHOD: Test items covering content in family medicine were administered in two different formats to 7,036 resident physicians in 380 training programs, and to 35 experienced, board-certified physicians in conjunction with the In-training Examination of the American Board of Family Practice. Examinees completed a booklet of 40 open-ended, uncued (UnQ) test items by selecting the answer to each item from a list of over 500 responses. Similar items were administered using the standard multiple-choice question (MCQ) format. One year later, another test of 40 UnQ test items dealing with core content in family medicine was administered to 7,138 residents.
RESULTS: Examinees completed over 560,000 UnQ responses with high compliance and few errors. Both reliability and validity for the UnQ format were higher than for the MCQ format, and the UnQ items discriminated more accurately among levels of physicians' experience. The UnQ format almost eliminated the possibility that the physicians could answer questions by sight recognition or random guessing, and it was particularly effective in measuring knowledge of core content.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of administering open-ended test items to enhance tests of physicians' competence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10353288     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199905000-00022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  12 in total

Review 1.  Methods of Observing Variations in Physicians' Decisions: The Opportunities of Clinical Vignettes.

Authors:  Lara Converse; Kirsten Barrett; Eugene Rich; James Reschovsky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Guidelines for the construction of multiple choice questions tests.

Authors:  Mohammed O Al-Rukban
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  2006-09

3.  Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study.

Authors:  Rebecca Grainger; Wei Dai; Emma Osborne; Diane Kenwright
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  Assessing clinical reasoning skills using Script Concordance Test (SCT) and extended matching questions (EMQs): A pilot for urology trainees.

Authors:  Syed Muhammad Nazim; Jamsheer J Talati; Sheila Pinjani; Syed Raziuddin Biyabani; Muhammad Hammad Ather; John J Norcini
Journal:  J Adv Med Educ Prof       Date:  2019-01

5.  Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

Authors:  Amir H Sam; Chee Yeen Fung; Rebecca K Wilson; Emilia Peleva; David C Kluth; Martin Lupton; David R Owen; Colin R Melville; Karim Meeran
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Very Short Answer Questions: A Novel Approach To Summative Assessments In Pathology.

Authors:  Amir H Sam; Emilia Peleva; Chee Yeen Fung; Nicki Cohen; Emyr W Benbow; Karim Meeran
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2019-11-04

7.  Does developing multiple-choice Questions Improve Medical Students' Learning? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Youness Touissi; Ghita Hjiej; Abderrazak Hajjioui; Azeddine Ibrahimi; Maryam Fourtassi
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2022-12

8.  Effect of response format for clinical vignettes on reporting quality of physician practice.

Authors:  Thao Pham; Carine Roy; Xavier Mariette; Fréderic Lioté; Pierre Durieux; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Knowledge maps: a tool for online assessment with automated feedback.

Authors:  Veronica W Ho; Peter G Harris; Rakesh K Kumar; Gary M Velan
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2018-12

10.  Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options.

Authors:  Mike Tweed
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-09-14       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.