Literature DB >> 15327679

Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses?

Lambert W T Schuwirth1, Cees P M van der Vleuten.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Written assessment techniques can be subdivided according to their stimulus format--what the question asks--and their response format--how the answer is recorded. The former is more important in determining the type of competence being asked for than the latter. It is nevertheless important to consider both when selecting the most appropriate types. Some major elements to consider when making such a selection are cueing effect, reliability, validity, educational impact and resource-intensiveness. RESPONSE FORMATS: Open-ended questions should be used solely to test aspects that cannot be tested with multiple-choice questions. In all other cases the loss of reliability and the higher resource-intensiveness represent a significant downside. In such cases, multiple-choice questions are not less valid than open-ended questions. STIMULUS FORMAT: When making this distinction, it is important to consider whether the question is embedded within a relevant case or context and cannot be answered without the case, or not. This appears to be more or less essential according to what is being tested by the question. Context-rich questions test other cognitive skills than do context-free questions. If knowledge alone is the purpose of the test, context-free questions may be useful, but if it is the application of knowledge or knowledge as a part of problem solving that is being tested, then context is indispensable.
CONCLUSION: Every format has its (dis)advantages and a combination of formats based on rational selection is more useful than trying to find or develop a panacea. The response format is less important in this respect than the stimulus.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15327679     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  33 in total

1.  A comparison of the efficacy of test-driven learning versus self-assessment learning.

Authors:  Xiaohua He; Anne Canty
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2013-06-27

2.  Assessment methods in undergraduate medical education.

Authors:  Nadia M Al-Wardy
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2010-07-19

3.  Prerequisite for enhancing student learning outcomes in medical education.

Authors:  C B Hazlett
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2009-06-30

4.  An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Marie Tarrant; James Ware; Ahmed M Mohammed
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2009-07-07       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  [The Erlangen examination. An alternative to multiple choice testing for German neurology students].

Authors:  J G Heckmann; C Rauch; M Dütsch; C Lang; M Weih; S Schwab
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.214

6.  Performance and views of examiners in the Applied Knowledge Test for the nMRCGP licensing examination.

Authors:  A Niroshan Siriwardena; Hilton Dixon; Carol Blow; Bill Irish; Paul Milne
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Assessable learning outcomes for the EU Education and Training Framework core and Function A specific modules: Report of an ETPLAS WORKING Group.

Authors:  Ismene A Dontas; Kenneth Applebee; Martje Fentener van Vlissingen; Viola Galligioni; Katerina Marinou; Kathy Ryder; Johannes Schenkel; Jan-Bas Prins; Anne-Dominique Degryse; David I Lewis
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.471

8.  Evaluation of three instructional methods of teaching for undergraduate medical students, at king saud university, saudi arabia.

Authors:  Eiad A Al-Faris; Hamza M Abdulghani; Khalid A B Abdulrahman; Norah A Al-Rowais; Abdulaziz A B Saeed; Shaffi A Shaikh
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  2008-09

9.  A new framework for designing programmes of assessment.

Authors:  J Dijkstra; C P M Van der Vleuten; L W T Schuwirth
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2009-10-10       Impact factor: 3.853

10.  Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study.

Authors:  Lisette van Bruggen; Margreet Manrique-van Woudenbergh; Emely Spierenburg; Jacqueline Vos
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2012-10-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.