Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective analysis.

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Journal of Chiropractic Education Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.7899/JCE-23-8

Xiaohua He, Niu Zhang

{"title":"Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective analysis.","authors":"Xiaohua He, Niu Zhang","doi":"10.7899/JCE-23-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective was to compare the average number of mistakes made on multiple-choice (MCQ) and fill-in-the-blank (FIB) questions in anatomy lab exams.Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively; every exam had both MCQs and FIBs. The study cohorts were divided into 3 tiers based on the number and percentage of mistakes in answering sheets: low (21-32, >40%), middle (11-20, 40%-20%), and high (1-9, <20%) tiers. The study used an independent 2-sample t test to compare the number of mistakes between MCQs and FIBs overall and per tier and a 1-way analysis of variance to compare the number of mistakes in both formats across the 3 tiers.Results: The results show that there was a significant difference in the number of mistakes between the 2 formats overall with more mistakes found on FIBs (p < .001). The number of mistakes made in the high and middle tiers had a statistical difference, being higher on MCQs (p < .001). There was no significant difference in the number of mistakes made in the low tier between formats (p > .05). Furthermore, the study found significant differences in the number of mistakes made on MCQs and FIBs across the 3 tiers, being highest in the low-tier group (p < .001).Conclusion: There were fewer mistakes on the MCQ than the FIB format in exams. It also suggests that, in the low tier answering sheets, both formats could be used to identify students at academic risk who need more attention.","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to compare the average number of mistakes made on multiple-choice (MCQ) and fill-in-the-blank (FIB) questions in anatomy lab exams.

Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively; every exam had both MCQs and FIBs. The study cohorts were divided into 3 tiers based on the number and percentage of mistakes in answering sheets: low (21-32, >40%), middle (11-20, 40%-20%), and high (1-9, <20%) tiers. The study used an independent 2-sample t test to compare the number of mistakes between MCQs and FIBs overall and per tier and a 1-way analysis of variance to compare the number of mistakes in both formats across the 3 tiers.

Results: The results show that there was a significant difference in the number of mistakes between the 2 formats overall with more mistakes found on FIBs (p < .001). The number of mistakes made in the high and middle tiers had a statistical difference, being higher on MCQs (p < .001). There was no significant difference in the number of mistakes made in the low tier between formats (p > .05). Furthermore, the study found significant differences in the number of mistakes made on MCQs and FIBs across the 3 tiers, being highest in the low-tier group (p < .001).

Conclusion: There were fewer mistakes on the MCQ than the FIB format in exams. It also suggests that, in the low tier answering sheets, both formats could be used to identify students at academic risk who need more attention.

查看原文本刊更多论文

选择题和填空题考试错误的比较：回顾性分析

目的目的是比较解剖学实验考试中选择题（MCQ）和填空题（FIB）的平均错误次数：研究以回顾性方式进行；每次考试都有 MCQ 和 FIB。研究队列根据答题纸的错误数量和百分比分为 3 个等级：低（21-32，>40%）、中（11-20，40%-20%）和高（1-9，结果：结果表明，两种格式的错误数量总体上存在显著差异，FIB 的错误数量较多（p < .001）。高分段和中分段的错误数量存在统计学差异，MCQ 的错误数量更高（p < .001）。在低层次中，不同形式的错误数量没有明显差异（p > .05）。此外，研究还发现 MCQ 和 FIB 的错误数量在 3 个级别之间存在显著差异，其中低级别组的错误数量最高（p < .001）：结论：在考试中，MCQ 的错误率低于 FIB。结论：在考试中，MCQ 比 FIB 形式的错误更少，这也表明，在低层答卷中，两种形式都可用于识别需要更多关注的学业风险学生。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

37.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.