Literature DB >> 19763855

Are multiple choice tests fair to medical students with specific learning disabilities?

Chris Ricketts1, Julie Brice, Lee Coombes.   

Abstract

The purpose of multiple choice tests of medical knowledge is to estimate as accurately as possible a candidate's level of knowledge. However, concern is sometimes expressed that multiple choice tests may also discriminate in undesirable and irrelevant ways, such as between minority ethnic groups or by sex of candidates. There is little literature to establish whether multiple choice tests may also discriminate against students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), in particular those with a diagnosis of dyslexia, and whether the commonly-used accommodations allow such students to perform up to their capability. We looked for evidence to help us determine whether multiple choice tests could be relied upon to test all medical students fairly, regardless of disability. We analyzed the mean scores of over 900 undergraduate medical students on eight multiple-choice progress tests containing 1,000 items using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. We included disability, gender and ethnicity as possible explanatory factors, as well as year group. There was no significant difference between mean scores of students with an SLD who had test accommodations and students with no SLD and no test accommodation. Virtually all students were able to complete the tests within the allowed time. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of known minority ethnic groups or between the genders. We conclude that properly-designed multiple-choice tests of medical knowledge do not systematically discriminate against medical students with specific learning disabilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19763855     DOI: 10.1007/s10459-009-9197-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract        ISSN: 1382-4996            Impact factor:   3.853


  4 in total

1.  The impact of disability on performance in a high-stakes postgraduate surgical examination: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  R Ellis; J Cleland; Dsg Scrimgeour; A J Lee; P A Brennan
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Negatively-marked MCQ assessments that reward partial knowledge do not introduce gender bias yet increase student performance and satisfaction and reduce anxiety.

Authors:  A Elizabeth Bond; Owen Bodger; David O F Skibinski; D Hugh Jones; Colin J Restall; Edward Dudley; Geertje van Keulen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Ethnicity and academic performance in UK trained doctors and medical students: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Katherine Woolf; Henry W W Potts; I C McManus
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-03-08

4.  Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking.

Authors:  Jef Vanderoost; Rianne Janssen; Jan Eggermont; Riet Callens; Tinne De Laet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.