User experience of the Written Exam Question Quality tool to inform the writing of new written-exam questions.

Canadian medical education journal Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.36834/cmej.72320
Élise Vachon Lachiver, Christina St-Onge
{"title":"User experience of the Written Exam Question Quality tool to inform the writing of new written-exam questions.","authors":"Élise Vachon Lachiver, Christina St-Onge","doi":"10.36834/cmej.72320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Creating new written-exam questions is a burdensome task for faculty members. While several guidelines exist, there had not been a previous attempt to streamline them in a user-friendly tool. We created the Written Exam Question Quality tool (WEQQ) and explored potential users' perception of this tool when writing their exam questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive study to explore how four Canadian faculty members used the WEQQ. We conducted structured interviews that were analyzed within and across participants to understand the latter's perceived usefulness and acceptability of the WEQQ. Quantitative data from a short questionnaire on creating exam questions and their psychometric properties were also collected.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>Participants' perception of the WEQQ was positive, and they were favorable to its use. The WEQQ seemed to represent a user-friendly, easy way to help faculty members in creating multiple-choice or short-answer questions. Time on task remained the same when using the WEQQ. We were able to identify two user profiles, passive and active, which indicated how faculty members use the WEQQ to create exam questions. Future steps would be to further investigate if the WEQQ can increase the quality of written-exam questions and to understand how to promote an active use of the WEQQ when implementing this tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":72503,"journal":{"name":"Canadian medical education journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"83-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian medical education journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.72320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Creating new written-exam questions is a burdensome task for faculty members. While several guidelines exist, there had not been a previous attempt to streamline them in a user-friendly tool. We created the Written Exam Question Quality tool (WEQQ) and explored potential users' perception of this tool when writing their exam questions.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive study to explore how four Canadian faculty members used the WEQQ. We conducted structured interviews that were analyzed within and across participants to understand the latter's perceived usefulness and acceptability of the WEQQ. Quantitative data from a short questionnaire on creating exam questions and their psychometric properties were also collected.

Results and conclusion: Participants' perception of the WEQQ was positive, and they were favorable to its use. The WEQQ seemed to represent a user-friendly, easy way to help faculty members in creating multiple-choice or short-answer questions. Time on task remained the same when using the WEQQ. We were able to identify two user profiles, passive and active, which indicated how faculty members use the WEQQ to create exam questions. Future steps would be to further investigate if the WEQQ can increase the quality of written-exam questions and to understand how to promote an active use of the WEQQ when implementing this tool.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 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