一年级医学生理学课程中多项选择题形式的比较。

Journal of CME Pub Date : 2024-08-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264
L Britt Wilson, Christine DiStefano, Huijuan Wang, Erika L Blanck
{"title":"一年级医学生理学课程中多项选择题形式的比较。","authors":"L Britt Wilson, Christine DiStefano, Huijuan Wang, Erika L Blanck","doi":"10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r<sub>pbis</sub>), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and r<sub>pbis</sub> (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions (<i>p</i> = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF; <i>p</i> = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.</p>","PeriodicalId":73675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of CME","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11328596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course.\",\"authors\":\"L Britt Wilson, Christine DiStefano, Huijuan Wang, Erika L Blanck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r<sub>pbis</sub>), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and r<sub>pbis</sub> (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions (<i>p</i> = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF; <i>p</i> = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of CME\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11328596/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of CME\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2390264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较遵循标准格式(SF)和不遵循标准格式(此处称为非标准格式(NSF))的多项选择题(MCQ)的学生成绩和问题辨别力。该研究使用了五年内(2020-2024 年)收集的约 500 名医科一年级学生的医学生理学考试成绩。我们确定了经典测试理论的项目分析指数,如区分度(D)、点-线性相关(rpbis)、非功能性干扰项(NFD)的干扰项分析和难度(p),并对不同 MCQ 格式进行了比较。本文给出的结果为平均值±平均值标准误差(SEM)。分析表明,与 SF 题型相比,NSF 题型的 D(0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006)和 rpbis(0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006)明显更高,这表明 NSF 题型的区分度更高。此外,与 SF 问题相比,NSF 问题的 NFD 百分比更低(58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%)。此外,事实证明,NSF题目比SF题目更难(NSF题目的p = 0.741 ± 0.007;SF题目的p = 0.809 ± 0.006)。因此,与 SF 问题相比,NSF 问题的区分度更高,NFD 更少,难度更大。这些数据表明,使用精选的非标准题目可以提高在 MCQ 考试中区分成绩优秀和成绩较差学生的能力,并使考试更加严格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course.

The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (rpbis), distractor analysis for non-functional distractors (NFDs), and difficulty (p) were determined and compared across MCQ format types. The results presented here are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The analysis showed that D (0.278 ± 0.008 vs 0.228 ± 0.006) and rpbis (0.291 ± .006 vs 0.273 ± .006) were significantly higher for NSF questions compared to SF questions, indicating NSF questions provided more discriminatory power. In addition, the percentage of NFDs was lower for the NSF items compared to the SF ones (58.3 ± 0.019% vs 70.2 ± 0.015%). Also, the NSF questions proved to be more difficult relative to the SF questions (p = 0.741 ± 0.007 for NSF; p = 0.809 ± 0.006 for SF). Thus, the NSF questions discriminated better, had fewer NFDs, and were more difficult than SF questions. These data suggest that using the selected non-standard item writing questions can enhance the ability to discriminate higher performers from lower performers on MCQs as well as provide more rigour for exams.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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