A trial of multiple choice examination in pharmacology

Gandhi, Indira; Ghosh, M.N.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1978.tb00352.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The values of test reliability recorded (0.71‐0.85) exceed the acceptable minimum of 0.70 set by Lipton & Huxham (1970). Although short of 0.96, which, according to Buckley‐Sharp & Harris (1972b), is the threshold for ‘really accurate’ ranking, they bear comparison with 0.74 and 0.92 obtained by Gandhi & Ghosh (1978) for two MCQ examinations in pharmacology. A concern for reliability is justifiable although it is intrinsically less important than validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Multiple-choice testing in anatomy

Nnodim

1992

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An analysis of 596 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on human anatomy given at three First Professional Examinations for medical students is reported. The MCQ paper at each examination was 200 items long and consisted of three item-types: A, K and T/F. Each A-type item comprised a stem and five options, only one of the latter being the correct or best answer. Items of the K-type consisted of a stem and four responses, any number of which may be correct. The T/F items were of the three-response kind, the available options being 'true', 'false' and 'don't know'. Test reliability was computed by internal analysis, using the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula. Measures of concurrent validity were obtained by correlating the scores in the MCQ papers with the overall outcome of the First Professional Examination. Indices of item facility, discrimination and abstention were calculated. The effects of item-type and the availability of the 'don't know' option on examinee performance were also determined. Reliability (alpha) and concurrent validity (Pearson r) coefficients in the ranges of 0.71-0.85 and 0.80-0.93 (P less than 0.05) respectively were recorded. Regression analysis revealed the MCQ papers to be less sensitive predictors of the aggregate performance than the essay papers. The proportion of highly discriminatory and excessively difficult items was highest for the K-type. When the same K-type questions were re-exhibited in the indeterminate format, the examinees performed significantly better. Higher scores were also recorded when candidates were required to respond to all the questions than when they were offered the 'don't know' option and the percentage gain was higher for the low-scoring examinees. The appropriateness of multiple-choice testing as a tool for assessing student achievement in human anatomy is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Multiple-choice testing in anatomy

Nnodim

1992

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1969; Fisk et al . 1975; Joorabchi & Chawhan 1975; Gandhi & Ghosh 1978; Fredman 1979). In non‐medical examinations, coefficients of 0.81 to 0.91 are typical (Ebel 1978; Frisbie & Sweeney 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test-retest reliability of multiple true-false questions in preclinical medical subjects

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that the 'ideal' measure of reliability of an examination is obtained by test and retest using the one examination on the same group of students. However, because of practical and theoretical arguments, most reported reliabilities for multiple choice examinations in medicine are actually measures of internal consistency. While attempting to minimize the effects of potential interfering factors, we have undertaken a study of true test-retest reliability of multiple true-false type multiple choice questions in preclinical medical subjects. From three end-of-term examinations, 363 items (106 of 449 from term 1, 150 of 499 from term 2, and 107 of 492 from term 3) were repeated in the final examination (out of 999 total items). Between test and retest, there was little overall decrease in the percentage of items answered correctly and a decrease of only 3.4 in the percentage score after correction for guessing. However, there was an inverse relation between test-retest interval and decrease in performance. Between test and retest, performance decreased significantly on 33 items and increased significantly on 11 items. Test-retest correlation coefficients were 0.70 to 0.78 for items from the separate terms and 0.885 for all items that were retested. Thus, overall, these items had a very high degree of reliability, approximately the 0.9 which has been specified as the requirement for being able to distinguish between individuals.

show abstract

“…Multiple choice questions (MCQs) have been a favoured method of assessing student knowledge and understanding in the medical field for many years. [2][3][4][5] The high reliability and versatility of MCQs and the ability to mark them quickly and efficiently has made them an oft-used tool for teaching and evaluating many different disciplines. [6][7][8] Online education has relied heavily on the use of MCQs as its main assessment tool as witnessed by the use of learning systems such as Blackboard 9 and Web-CT. 10 The design of MCQs requires a solid knowledge of the subject being assessed as well as an understanding of the mechanics of making a good question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing Multiple Choice Questions as a Method for Learning

Palmer

Devitt

2006

Ann Acad Med Singap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Many different strategies exist to try and encourage students to increase their knowledge and understanding of a subject. This study was undertaken to measure the effect of student-based construction of multiple choice questions (MCQs) as a stimulus for the learning and understanding of topics in clinical surgery. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out at the University of Adelaide, Australia and had 2 components. Fourth-year students were required to provide a case study during a surgical attachment and half of the group was asked to supplement this with MCQs. These students were pre- and post-tested and the effect of the additional intervention (MCQ-construction) measured. Fifth-year students were polled on their preferred methods of learning before and after a learning exercise in which they were asked to undertake a case presentation and create some MCQs. Results: The MCQ questions designed by the students were of a high standard and clearly displayed an understanding of the topic concerned. The 4th-year students in the MCQ construction group showed equivalent outcomes as the case study control group. Students initially ranked MCQ-construction amongst the least stimulating methods of learning, but after the exercise their opinion was significantly more favourable, although still much less than traditional learning methodologies (tutorials, books). Conclusions: Construction of MCQs as a learning tool is an unfamiliar exercise to most students and is an unpopular learning strategy. However, students are capable of producing high quality questions, and the challenge for medical faculties is how best to use this initiative to the students’ advantage. Key words: Educational measurement, Educational models, Medical students

show abstract

A trial of multiple choice examination in pharmacology

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Multiple-choice testing in anatomy

Multiple-choice testing in anatomy

Test-retest reliability of multiple true-false questions in preclinical medical subjects

Constructing Multiple Choice Questions as a Method for Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About