总结性考试中多项选择题的使用情况:德国牙科本科生培训项目问卷调查。

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Lena Rössler, Manfred Herrmann, Annette Wiegand, Philipp Kanzow
{"title":"总结性考试中多项选择题的使用情况:德国牙科本科生培训项目问卷调查。","authors":"Lena Rössler, Manfred Herrmann, Annette Wiegand, Philipp Kanzow","doi":"10.2196/58126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple-choice examinations are frequently employed among German dental schools. However, details regarding the used item types and applied scoring methods are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to gain an insight into the current usage of multiple-choice items (ie, questions) in summative examinations in German undergraduate dental training programmes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A paper-based 10-item questionnaire regarding the employed assessment methods, multiple-choice item types, and applied scoring methods was designed. The pilot-tested questionnaire was mailed to the Deans of Studies and to the Heads of Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry at all 30 dental schools in Germany in February 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test (<i>P</i><.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate amounted to 90.0% (27/30 dental schools). All respondent dental schools employed multiple-choice examinations for summative assessments. Examinations were delivered electronically by 70.4% (19/27) of the dental schools. Almost all dental schools used single-choice Type A items (88.9%) which accounted for the largest number of items in about half of the dental schools. Further item types (eg, conventional multiple-select items, Multiple-True-False, Pick-N) were only used by fewer dental schools (≤66.7%, up to 18 out of 27 dental schools). For the multiple-select item types, the applied scoring methods varied considerably (ie, awarding [intermediate] partial credit, requirements for partial credit). Dental schools with the possibility of electronic examinations used multiple-select items slightly more often (73.7%, 14/19 vs. 50.0%, 4/8). However, this difference was statistically not significant (<i>P</i>=.375). Dental schools used items either individually or as key feature problems consisting of a clinical case scenario followed by a number of items focusing on critical treatment steps (55.6%, 15/27). Not a single school employed alternative testing methods (eg, answer-until-correct). A formal item review process was established at about half of the dental schools (55.6%, 15/27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Summative assessment methods among German dental schools vary widely. Especially, a large variability regarding the use and scoring of multiple-select multiple-choice items was found.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usage of Multiple-Choice Items in Summative Examinations: Questionnaire Survey Among German Undergraduate Dental Training Programmes.\",\"authors\":\"Lena Rössler, Manfred Herrmann, Annette Wiegand, Philipp Kanzow\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/58126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple-choice examinations are frequently employed among German dental schools. However, details regarding the used item types and applied scoring methods are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to gain an insight into the current usage of multiple-choice items (ie, questions) in summative examinations in German undergraduate dental training programmes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A paper-based 10-item questionnaire regarding the employed assessment methods, multiple-choice item types, and applied scoring methods was designed. The pilot-tested questionnaire was mailed to the Deans of Studies and to the Heads of Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry at all 30 dental schools in Germany in February 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test (<i>P</i><.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate amounted to 90.0% (27/30 dental schools). All respondent dental schools employed multiple-choice examinations for summative assessments. Examinations were delivered electronically by 70.4% (19/27) of the dental schools. Almost all dental schools used single-choice Type A items (88.9%) which accounted for the largest number of items in about half of the dental schools. Further item types (eg, conventional multiple-select items, Multiple-True-False, Pick-N) were only used by fewer dental schools (≤66.7%, up to 18 out of 27 dental schools). For the multiple-select item types, the applied scoring methods varied considerably (ie, awarding [intermediate] partial credit, requirements for partial credit). Dental schools with the possibility of electronic examinations used multiple-select items slightly more often (73.7%, 14/19 vs. 50.0%, 4/8). However, this difference was statistically not significant (<i>P</i>=.375). Dental schools used items either individually or as key feature problems consisting of a clinical case scenario followed by a number of items focusing on critical treatment steps (55.6%, 15/27). Not a single school employed alternative testing methods (eg, answer-until-correct). A formal item review process was established at about half of the dental schools (55.6%, 15/27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Summative assessment methods among German dental schools vary widely. Especially, a large variability regarding the use and scoring of multiple-select multiple-choice items was found.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/58126\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景介绍德国牙科学院经常采用多项选择题考试。然而,有关所使用的题目类型和评分方法的详细信息却缺乏:我们旨在深入了解目前德国本科生口腔医学培训课程终结性考试中多项选择题(即试题)的使用情况:方法:我们设计了一份包含 10 个项目的纸质调查问卷,内容涉及所采用的评估方法、多项选择题类型以及应用的评分方法。试行问卷于 2023 年 2 月邮寄给德国所有 30 所牙科学院的院长和操作/修复牙科系主任。统计分析采用费雪精确检验(PResults:回复率为 90.0%(27/30 所牙科学校)。所有受访牙科学院均采用选择题考试进行终结性评估。70.4%的牙科学院(19/27)采用电子考试方式。几乎所有的牙科学院都使用了 A 类单项选择题(88.9%),在大约一半的牙科学院中,A 类单项选择题的数量最多。只有较少的口腔医学院(≤66.7%,27 所口腔医学院中有 18 所)使用其他类型的题目(如传统的多选题、真假多选题、N 选题)。对于多选题类型,所采用的评分方法差别很大(即授予[中间]部分学分,对部分学分的要求)。可以进行电子考试的牙科学院使用多选题的比例略高(73.7%,14/19 对 50.0%,4/8)。然而,这一差异在统计学上并不显著(P=0.375)。牙科学院使用的题目要么是单独的,要么是由临床病例情景组成的关键特征问题,然后是一些侧重于关键治疗步骤的题目(55.6%,15/27)。没有一所学校采用其他测试方法(如 "答对为止")。大约一半的牙科学院(55.6%,15/27)建立了正式的项目审查程序:结论:德国牙科学院的总结性评估方法差异很大。结论:德国牙科学院的终结性评估方法差异很大,尤其是在多选题的使用和评分方面存在很大差异:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Usage of Multiple-Choice Items in Summative Examinations: Questionnaire Survey Among German Undergraduate Dental Training Programmes.

Background: Multiple-choice examinations are frequently employed among German dental schools. However, details regarding the used item types and applied scoring methods are lacking.

Objective: We aimed to gain an insight into the current usage of multiple-choice items (ie, questions) in summative examinations in German undergraduate dental training programmes.

Methods: A paper-based 10-item questionnaire regarding the employed assessment methods, multiple-choice item types, and applied scoring methods was designed. The pilot-tested questionnaire was mailed to the Deans of Studies and to the Heads of Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry at all 30 dental schools in Germany in February 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test (P<.05).

Results: The response rate amounted to 90.0% (27/30 dental schools). All respondent dental schools employed multiple-choice examinations for summative assessments. Examinations were delivered electronically by 70.4% (19/27) of the dental schools. Almost all dental schools used single-choice Type A items (88.9%) which accounted for the largest number of items in about half of the dental schools. Further item types (eg, conventional multiple-select items, Multiple-True-False, Pick-N) were only used by fewer dental schools (≤66.7%, up to 18 out of 27 dental schools). For the multiple-select item types, the applied scoring methods varied considerably (ie, awarding [intermediate] partial credit, requirements for partial credit). Dental schools with the possibility of electronic examinations used multiple-select items slightly more often (73.7%, 14/19 vs. 50.0%, 4/8). However, this difference was statistically not significant (P=.375). Dental schools used items either individually or as key feature problems consisting of a clinical case scenario followed by a number of items focusing on critical treatment steps (55.6%, 15/27). Not a single school employed alternative testing methods (eg, answer-until-correct). A formal item review process was established at about half of the dental schools (55.6%, 15/27).

Conclusions: Summative assessment methods among German dental schools vary widely. Especially, a large variability regarding the use and scoring of multiple-select multiple-choice items was found.

Clinicaltrial:

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 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