Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open-ended questions requiring a very short answer, may circumvent these limitations. Although VSAQ use in medical assessment increases, almost all research on reliability and validity of VSAQs in medical education has been performed by a single research group with extensive experience in the development of VSAQs. Therefore, we aimed to validate previous findings about VSAQ reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students and teachers with limited experience in VSAQs development. To validate the results presented in previous studies, we partially replicated a previous study and extended results on student experiences. Dutch undergraduate medical students (n = 375) were randomized to VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in a formative exam in two courses, to determine reliability, discrimination, and cueing. Acceptability for teachers (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Reliability (Cronbach’s α) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach’s α was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (average Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ±2 minutes on average. Positive cueing occurred more in MCQs than in VSAQs (20% vs. 4% and 20.8% vs. 8.3% of questions per person in both courses). This study validates the positive results regarding VSAQs reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VSAQ use is reliable among teachers with limited experience in writing and marking VSAQs. The short learning curve for teachers, favourable marking time and applicability regardless of the topic suggest that VSAQs might also be valuable beyond medical assessment.

Introduction: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs) may circumvent these limitations. We investigated VSAQ reliability, discriminative capability, acceptability, and knowledge retention compared to MCQs. Methods: Dutch undergraduate medical students (n=375) were randomised to a formative exam with VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in two courses, to determine reliability and discrimination. Next, acceptability (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Knowledge retention at 2 and 5 months was determined by comparing score increase on the three-monthly progress test (PT) between students tested with VSAQs and students from previous years tested without VSAQs. Results: Reliability (Cronbachs alpha) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbachs alpha; was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs . Discrimination (Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ± 2 minutes on average. No clear effect on knowledge retention after 2 and 5 months was observed. Discussion: We found increased reliability and discrimination of VSAQs compared to MCQs. Reviewing time of VSAQs was acceptable. The association with knowledge retention was unclear in our study. This study supports and extends positive results of previous studies on VSAQs regarding reliability, discriminative capability, and acceptability in Dutch undergraduate medical students.

No abstract