Literature DB >> 15763874

Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review.

Paul McCoubrie1.   

Abstract

The ubiquity of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) results from their efficiency and hence reliability. Cognitive knowledge assessed by MCQ predicts and correlates well with overall competence and performance but examinees and examiners alike frequently perceive MCQ-based testing as 'unfair'. Fairness is akin to defensibility and is an increasingly important concept in testing. It is dependent on psychometric adequacy, diligence of construction, attention to consequential validity and appropriate standard setting. There is a wealth of evidence that extended matching questions are the fairest format but MCQs should always be combined with practical assessments, as written testing emphasizes learning from written sources.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15763874     DOI: 10.1080/01421590400013495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  28 in total

1.  Web-based learning strategies in combination with published guidelines to change practice of primary care professionals.

Authors:  Jean Robson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Gynaecological laparoscopy courses in the United Arab Emirates.

Authors:  H M Elbiss; S George; I Sidky; F M Abu-Zidan
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 0.927

3.  Effectiveness of a 1-year resident training program in clinical research: a controlled before-and-after study.

Authors:  Bernd Löwe; Mechthild Hartmann; Beate Wild; Christoph Nikendei; Kurt Kroenke; Dorothea Niehoff; Peter Henningsen; Stephan Zipfel; Wolfgang Herzog
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Exploring Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Test-Taking Behaviors During Clinical Vignette Style Multiple-Choice Examinations: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Brian Sanjay Heist; Jed David Gonzalo; Steven Durning; Dario Torre; David Michael Elnicki
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2014-12

5.  [Cues and pseudocues in surgical multiple choice questions from the German state examination].

Authors:  J de Laffolie; D Visser; M Hirschburger; S Turial
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  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

Review 7.  Metrics in medical education.

Authors:  Paul McCoubrie
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  2010-05

8.  Learning assessment at shoulder surgical skills course.

Authors:  J John; J H Kuiper; C P Kelly
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.891

9.  Item analysis of multiple choice questions: A quality assurance test for an assessment tool.

Authors:  Dharmendra Kumar; Raksha Jaipurkar; Atul Shekhar; Gaurav Sikri; V Srinivas
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2021-02-02

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

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.