A Survey of Goals and Interests of Medical Faculty Members Who Write Residency Promotion Test Questions in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

Shahram Paydar, Sam Bahmani, Zahra Ghahramani, Shahrzad Paydar

Abstract


227

Background and Purpose: The quality of residency promotion tests is effective in resident’s knowledge and learning quality. We aimed to investigate the methods of writing questions for the residency promotion test by the faculty members of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we designed questionnaires to assess the faculty member’s goals, purpose and interests in writing questions.
Results: 50% of the faculty members wanted to evaluate what residents learn when they write questions. Also, 60% of them focus on of what is expected from residents in practice. The priority of 82.5% of the faculty members was the first line management of common diseases.
Conclusions: We found no significant difference between questions made by faculty members and questions written by those who have no specific academic education. Faculty members with more experience assess the ability of residents to solve complicated questions more than those with less experience.

Keywords: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS; MCQ’S; INVESTIGATION; RESIDENCY PROMOTION TEST; QUESTIONS; FACULTY MEMBERS


Keywords


MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS; MCQ’S; INVESTIGATION; RESIDENCY PROMOTION TEST; QUESTIONS; FACULTY MEMBERS

Full Text:

PDF

66

References


Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959-66.

Reid WA, Duvall E, Evans P. Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in year two medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):754-62.

Shabani H. [Instructional Skills, Methods and Techniques of teaching] 8th ed. Ghom: SAMT. 1998;153-60.

Saif AA. Educational measurement, assessment and evaluation. Tehran: Doran Publication; 2003.

Newble N, Cannon RA. Handbook for Medical Teachers. Mahmoodi SM. (Persian translator) First ed. Tehran: Health Ministry Publisher; 1997.

Tabatabaei K, Toosi MHB, Azizi M, Ebrahimzadeh S, Toosi VB, Bahraini Toosi K. Analytical multiple choice questions of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in the second half of the year 2000-2001. Journal of Medical Faculty of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. 2002;45(2):89-95. [in Persian]

Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. Philadelphia, PA: National Board of Medical Examiners; 2002.

Schuwirth LW, Verheggen MM, van der Vleuten CP, Boshuizen HP, Dinant GJ. Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do? Med Educ 2001; 35(4):348-56.

Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP, Donkers HH. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple‐choice questions. Med Educ. 1996;30(1):44-9.

Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165(13):1493-9.

Schuwirth LW, Van Der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and

weaknesses? Med Educ. 2004;38(9):974-9.

Kashani AS, Mohammadi M, Zeinaloo A, Razavi M. Standardization Student Evaluation: referrals of classical and modern theory. Tehran: SEDA Publication Center. 2004;24-5. [in Persian]

McCoubrie P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Med Teach. 2004;26(8):709-12.

Hammond EJ, McIndoe AK, Sansome AJ, Spargo PM. Multiple-choice examinations: adopting an evidence-based approach to exam technique. Anaesthesia. 1998;53(11):1105-8.

Tarrant M, Knierim A, Hayes SK, Ware J. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Educ Today. 2006;26(8):662-71.

Haghshenas M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmudi M, Shahbaznejad L, Parvinnejad N, Emadi A. Evaluation of Multiple Choice Questions in the School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, the First Semester of 200. Strides in development of Medical Education. 2009;5(2):120-7.

Shakournia A, Borojeni AK, Mozaffari A, Elhampour H. An Evaluation of Exam Questions Designed by Faculty Members, Emphasizing on the Multiple Choice Question Structure, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, 2007. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2010;6(2):129-38.

Barzegar M, Bilan N, Karegar Maher M, Shiva S, Sayyah Melli M, Tabrizi I. Comparison of Multiple-Choice Questions in Quality Parameters of Pediatric Residency Tests between the Pre-Board Examination of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and National Board Examination in 2007 and 2011. Research and Development in Medical Education. 2014;3(1):31-6.

Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287(2):226-35.

Batalden P, Leach D, Swing S, Dreyfus H, Dreyfus S. General competencies and accreditation in graduate medical

education. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002; 21(5):103-11.

Epstein RM. Mindful practice. JAMA. 1999;282(9):833-9.

Hoseini BL, Mazloum SR, Jafarnejad F, Foroughipour M. Comparison of midwifery students’ satisfaction with direct observation of procedural skills and current methods in evaluation of procedural skills in Mashhad Nursing and Midwifery School. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18(2):94-100

Wass V, Van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet. 2001;357(9260):945-9.

Van Der Vleuten CP. The assessment of professional competence: developments,

research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996;1(1):41-67.

Considine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005;12(1):19-24.

Webb EM, Phuong JS, Naeger DM. Does Educator Training or Experience Affect the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions? Acad Radiol. 2015;22(10):1317-22.

Bjork EL, Soderstrom NC, Little JL. Can Multiple-Choice Testing Induce Desirable Difficulties? Evidence from the Laboratory and the Classroom. Am J Psychol. 2015;128(2):229-39.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v15i4.11586

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.