Does Educator Training or Experience Affect the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions?
被引:11
|
作者:
Webb, Emily M.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USAUniv Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
Webb, Emily M.
[1
]
Phuong, Jonathan S.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USAUniv Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
Phuong, Jonathan S.
[1
]
Naeger, David M.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USAUniv Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
Naeger, David M.
[1
]
机构:
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
Rationale and Objectives: Physicians receive little training on proper multiple-choice question (MCQ) writing methods. Well-constructed MCQs follow rules, which ensure that a question tests what it is intended to test. Questions that break these are described as "flawed." We examined whether the prevalence of flawed questions differed significantly between those with or without prior training in question writing and between those with different levels of educator experience. Materials and Methods: We assessed 200 unedited MCQs from a question bank for our senior medical student radiology elective: an equal number of questions (50) were written by faculty with previous training in MCQ writing, other faculty, residents, and medical students. Questions were scored independently by two readers for the presence of 11 distinct flaws described in the literature. Results: Questions written by faculty with MCQ writing training had significantly fewer errors: mean 0.4 errors per question compared to a mean of 1.5-1.7 errors per question for the other groups (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the total number of errors between the untrained faculty, residents, and students (P values .35-.91). Among trained faculty 17/50 questions (34%) were flawed, whereas other faculty wrote 38/50 (76%) flawed questions, residents 37/50 (74%), and students 44/50 (88%). Trained question writers' higher performance was mainly manifest in the reduced frequency of five specific errors. Conclusions: Faculty with training in effective MCQ writing made fewer errors in MCQ construction. Educator experience alone had no effect on the frequency of flaws; faculty without dedicated training, residents, and students performed similarly.
机构:
Rush Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Med Ctr, 1750 West Harrison St,Suite 108 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612 USARush Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Med Ctr, 1750 West Harrison St,Suite 108 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
Gottlieb, Michael
Bailitz, John
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Northwestern Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Chicago, IL USARush Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Med Ctr, 1750 West Harrison St,Suite 108 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
Bailitz, John
Fix, Megan
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Utah Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Salt Lake City, UT USARush Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Med Ctr, 1750 West Harrison St,Suite 108 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
Fix, Megan
Shappell, Eric
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Harvard Med Sch, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Boston, MA USARush Univ, Dept Emergency Med, Med Ctr, 1750 West Harrison St,Suite 108 Kellogg, Chicago, IL 60612 USA