Assessing the Difficulty and Long-Term Retention of Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Through Multiple-Choice Questions: A Longitudinal Study.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S478193
Neil G Haycocks, Jessica Hernandez-Moreno, Johan C Bester, Robert Hernandez, Rosalie Kalili, Daman Samrao, Edward Simanton, Thomas A Vida
{"title":"Assessing the Difficulty and Long-Term Retention of Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Through Multiple-Choice Questions: A Longitudinal Study.","authors":"Neil G Haycocks, Jessica Hernandez-Moreno, Johan C Bester, Robert Hernandez, Rosalie Kalili, Daman Samrao, Edward Simanton, Thomas A Vida","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S478193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the mainstay in examinations for medical education, physician licensing, and board certification. Traditionally, MCQs tend to test rote recall of memorized facts. Their utility in assessing higher cognitive functions has been more problematic to determine. This work evaluates and compares the difficulty and long-term retention of factual versus conceptual knowledge using multiple-choice questions in a longitudinal study.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We classified a series of MCQs into two groups to test recall/verbatim and conceptual/inferential thinking, respectively. We used the MCQs to test a two-part hypothesis: 1) scores for recall/verbatim questions would be significantly higher than for concept/inference questions, and 2) memory loss over time would be more significant for factual knowledge than conceptual understanding compared with a loss in the ability to reason about concepts critically. We first used the MCQs with pre-clinical medical students on a summative exam in 2020, which served as a retrospective benchmark of their performance characteristics. After two years, the same questions were re-administered to volunteers from the same cohort of students in 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Retrospective analysis revealed that recall/verbatim questions were answered correctly more frequently (82.0% vs 60.9%, P = 0.002). Performance on concept/inference questions showed a significant decline, but a larger decline was observed for recall/verbatim questions after two years. Performance on concept/inference questions showed a slight decline across quartiles, while two years later, recall/verbatim questions experienced substantial performance loss. Subgroup analysis indicated convergence in performance on both question types, suggesting that the clinical relevance of the MCQ content may have influenced a regression toward a baseline mean.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest conceptual/inferential thinking is more complex than rote memorization. However, the knowledge acquired is more durable in a longitudinal fashion, especially if it is reinforced in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"15 ","pages":"1217-1228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S478193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the mainstay in examinations for medical education, physician licensing, and board certification. Traditionally, MCQs tend to test rote recall of memorized facts. Their utility in assessing higher cognitive functions has been more problematic to determine. This work evaluates and compares the difficulty and long-term retention of factual versus conceptual knowledge using multiple-choice questions in a longitudinal study.

Patients and methods: We classified a series of MCQs into two groups to test recall/verbatim and conceptual/inferential thinking, respectively. We used the MCQs to test a two-part hypothesis: 1) scores for recall/verbatim questions would be significantly higher than for concept/inference questions, and 2) memory loss over time would be more significant for factual knowledge than conceptual understanding compared with a loss in the ability to reason about concepts critically. We first used the MCQs with pre-clinical medical students on a summative exam in 2020, which served as a retrospective benchmark of their performance characteristics. After two years, the same questions were re-administered to volunteers from the same cohort of students in 2020.

Results: Retrospective analysis revealed that recall/verbatim questions were answered correctly more frequently (82.0% vs 60.9%, P = 0.002). Performance on concept/inference questions showed a significant decline, but a larger decline was observed for recall/verbatim questions after two years. Performance on concept/inference questions showed a slight decline across quartiles, while two years later, recall/verbatim questions experienced substantial performance loss. Subgroup analysis indicated convergence in performance on both question types, suggesting that the clinical relevance of the MCQ content may have influenced a regression toward a baseline mean.

Conclusion: These findings suggest conceptual/inferential thinking is more complex than rote memorization. However, the knowledge acquired is more durable in a longitudinal fashion, especially if it is reinforced in clinical settings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信