Literature DB >> 27678403

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

J de Laffolie1,2, D Visser3, M Hirschburger4, S Turial5.   

Abstract

AIM: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the most common written test item in medical examinations. Writing MCQs is difficult and cues can decrease test validity. The aim of this article is to describe the prevalence and pattern of cues in surgical MCQs in the central German medical examination questions from 2000-2011.
METHOD: All surgical questions were entered into a database. The questions were reviewed for cues and pseudocues independently by three students of different academic background and one clinical physician.
RESULTS: Initially, 1014 questions were included, 22 questions were not rated uniformly by the reviewers and 3 questions were excluded because no consensus could be reached. Overall 15.2 % of the questions analyzed contained some type of cue or pseudocue. Of the total questions 0.2 % contained type A cues (i.e. disruption of grammatical flow), 6.5 % contained type B cues (i.e. heterogeneous length or differentiation), 4.0 % contained type C cues (two or more answers described closely related topics, serving to focus attention), 0.6 % contained type D convergence cues (i.e. answers with the most items in common with distractors are correct), 0.7 % contained type E verbal association cues (i.e. connection in the use of words leading to the correct answer) and 1.0 % contained type F cues (i.e. answers with absolute terms). Pseudocues were found in 3.7 % of the questions. DISCUSSION: The proportion of questions that contained cues or pseudocues should lead to further efforts to avoid such factors compromising test reliability by specific attention in the process of question design and review.
CONCLUSION: Cues are still an important consideration in designing MCQs and are present in considerable numbers in medical state examination questions. Pseudocues should be explicitly avoided so as not to compromise validity and reliability.

Keywords:  Assessment; Cues; Medical Education; Multiple Choice Questions; Surgical Education

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27678403     DOI: 10.1007/s00104-016-0291-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chirurg        ISSN: 0009-4722            Impact factor:   0.955


  5 in total

1.  The quality of in-house medical school examinations.

Authors:  Ralph F Jozefowicz; Bruce M Koeppen; Susan Case; Robert Galbraith; David Swanson; Robert H Glew
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 2.  Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review.

Authors:  Paul McCoubrie
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.650

3.  Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.

Authors:  Jannette Collins
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Improving multiple-choice questions to better assess dental student knowledge: distractor utilization in oral and maxillofacial pathology course examinations.

Authors:  C Alex McMahan; R Neal Pinckard; Thomas J Prihoda; William D Hendricson; Anne Cale Jones
Journal:  J Dent Educ       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.264

5.  Assessment in medicine-the multiple choice question controversy.

Authors:  J Anderson
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 3.650

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.