A new methodology for comparison of three-test exam techniques in medical students

Nayer Rassaian

Abstract


491

Background: In studies on validities of different methods for student assessment, each technique has been independently evaluated, but literature confirms the use of combination of different methods of assessment.
Objectives: Searching for negative and positive aspects of assessment tools, and introducing the more preferable technique.
Methods: In this descriptive-analytical research, 1372 medical students were tested using three types of questions; short-answer, multiple-choice, and true-false, so that the result of each method can be compared with those of the other two for each student. Nine classes from different curricula were randomly selected and in each of them, 30 questions for 10 selected topics (total 270), were distributed.
Results: The students' score analysis after excluding questions with a discrimination index of less than 0.3, showed that the most valid assessment tool was the short-answer questions (r0.685). The kappa coefficients of the shortanswer method and the other two were in the "fair" range of agreement. The highest coefficient of contingency is between the multiple-choice and true-false questions (0.402). The percentage of correct answers is the lowest in short-answer questions (53%), and the highest in true-false questions (65%). The higher percentage of incorrect answers in multiple-choice (32%) compared with the true-false (26%) questions can be the result of the students being confronted with alternative choices in multiple-choice question, which apparently encourages them to choose
one without using the relevant knowledge.
Conclusion: It is recommended to use short-answer and true-false questions as the main components of examination, instead of multiple-choice question alone, so that student's learning and recall would be tested and students would not be misled.
Keywords: MEDICAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT, SHORT-ANSWER, TRUE-FALSE, MULTIPLE-CHOICE, EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Keywords


MEDICAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT, SHORT-ANSWER, TRUE-FALSE, MULTIPLE-CHOICE, EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Full Text:

PDF

80

References


- Hammond EJ, Mclndoe AK, Sansome AJ, and Spargo PM. Multiple-choice examinations: adopting an evidence-based approach to exam technique. Anaesthesia 1998; 53(1 I): 1 105-8.

- Mavis BE, Cole BL, Hoppe RB. A survey of student assessment in US medical schools: the balance of breadth versus fidelity: Teach Learn

Med 2001; 13(2): 74-9.

- Schultheis NM. Writing cognitive educational objectives and multiple-choice test questions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998; 15; 55(22): 2397-401

-Specific Student Assessment Techniques, in Student Evaluation: Teacher Handbook [Online]. 1991 Dec [cited 2001 May 12]; Available from:

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.caldoc/Uoli£,ylstude vall

- Frohlich ED. Medical Qualifying Exaniination: Rypins' Questions & Answers For Basic Sciences Review, 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & WiMns; 2001: 4. 6- Rassaian N, Ghandehari NS, Nakhaei S. and Tajasob B. Attitude and academic performance of medical students in research-centered teaching method. Med J Islani Rep Irn 2000; 14(3): 253-60.

-Rassaian N. Long-term memory and learning through the use of research- centered teaching method. J Med Edu 2001; 1(l): 38-42.

- A critical review of student assessment options [Online]. 2000 [cited 2001 Aug 27]; Available from: http:www.nmu.edu/soa/review.html.

- Cox KR, Ewan CE. The Medical Teacher, Churchill Livingstone; 1982: 193-218.

- MacAleer S. Objective testing: Dent JA, Harden RM (editors), A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2001: 314-25.

- Wass V, McGibbon D, Van der Vleuten C. Composite undergraduate clinical examinations: How should the components be combined to maximize reliability? Med Edu 2001:35(4):326-30.

- Duffield KE, Spencer JA. A survey of medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment. Med Edu 2002; 36(9): 879-86.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v5i1.814

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