Formación continuada. Cómo redactar preguntas con opciones de respuesta múltiple

Fernández, Rafaela Soler; Díaz, C. Méndez; García, Esther Rodríguez

doi:10.1016/j.rx.2013.01.001

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Developing these questions is not an easy job because it requires the specialists who are writing them to have thorough and updated knowledge in their area of expertise, as well as to be skilled in constructing written test questions [2]. A guide for constructing written test questions has been written by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), helping university teachers to improve the quality of their exams [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties (“examen MIR”) in Spain (2009–2013)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe main factor that determines the selection of a medical specialty in Spain after obtaining a medical degree is the MIR (“médico interno residente”, internal medical resident) exam. This exam consists of 235 multiple-choice questions with five options, some of which include images provided in a separate booklet. The aim of this study was to analyze the technical quality of the multiple-choice questions included in the MIR exam over the last five years.MethodsAll the questions included in the exams from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed. We studied the proportion of questions including clinical vignettes, the number of items related to an image and the presence of technical flaws in the questions. For the analysis of technical flaws, we adapted the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) guidelines. We looked for 18 different issues included in the manual, grouped into two categories: issues related to testwiseness and issues related to irrelevant difficulties.ResultsThe final number of questions analyzed was 1,143. The percentage of items based on clinical vignettes increased from 50 % in 2009 to 56-58 % in the following years (2010–2013). The percentage of items based on an image increased progressively from 10 % in 2009 to 15 % in 2012 and 2013.The percentage of items with at least one technical flaw varied between 68 and 72 %. We observed a decrease in the percentage of items with flaws related to testwiseness, from 30 % in 2009 to 20 % in 2012 and 2013. While most of these issues decreased dramatically or even disappeared (such as the imbalance in the correct option numbers), the presence of non-plausible options remained frequent.With regard to technical flaws related to irrelevant difficulties, no improvement was observed; this is especially true with respect to negative stem questions and “hinged” questions.ConclusionThe formal quality of the MIR exam items has improved over the last five years with regard to testwiseness. A more detailed revision of the items submitted, checking systematically for the presence of technical flaws, could improve the validity and discriminatory power of the exam, without increasing its difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties (“examen MIR”) in Spain (2009–2013)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If one considers that the aim of the course was to develop learning, expressed in the learning objectives (Kubo & Botomé, 2001), and that low difficulty was expected in relation to responding to the exercises, then it appears that there is a need to reassess them judiciously. Examples of variables that can be evaluated in relation to the elaborated items are: (a) whether the skills and knowledge that were intended to be developed are measured through the teaching conditions created; (b) whether the alternative response options are clear, similar in size and homogeneous, that is, they deal with the same class of phenomena; (c) whether there is a clearly correct (and complete) answer; and (d) whether the incorrect alternatives are credible, grammatically correct, logically compatible with the question and of the same length as the other answers (Fernández et al, 2013). When teachers examine these items, they prevent a mistaken assessment of the student's learning from being carried out: if the student does not present the desired performance in the item, it will be clear to the teacher whether this fact occurred because the item did not fulfill the described criteria or because the teaching conditions were not relevant and sufficient to develop the expected skills and knowledge.…”

Section: Students' Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a MOOC developed from educational principles based on behavioral theory

Gusso¹,

Schuster²,

Kannenberg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study’s objective was to evaluate a MOOC constructed from educational principles based on behavioral theory. The evaluation included the analysis of the performance, retention, and perception of the students. This MOOC consisted of an initial test, three teaching units, a final test and an assessment of the students' perception. The mean grade in the initial test was 6.34 (sd=1.20), and in the last attempt of the final test it was 8.75 (sd=0.51). The difference between these values was statistically significant and the effect size was considered very large. The retention rate was 44%, and 75% of students rated the overall experience as “Very Good”. The evaluated MOOC was effective in teaching its learning objectives and student retention was much higher than the average reported in other studies.These results indicate the relevance of the educational principles used in the elaboration of the MOOC.

show abstract

Análisis y aspectos técnicos de las preguntas asociadas a imágenes radiológicas en el examen para médico interno residente en España, convocatoria 2022

Quintana

García

García³

et al. 2023

Radiología

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formación continuada. Cómo redactar preguntas con opciones de respuesta múltiple

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties (“examen MIR”) in Spain (2009–2013)

Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties (“examen MIR”) in Spain (2009–2013)

Evaluation of a MOOC developed from educational principles based on behavioral theory

Análisis y aspectos técnicos de las preguntas asociadas a imágenes radiológicas en el examen para médico interno residente en España, convocatoria 2022

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About