医学mcq的产生和使用:叙述性回顾。

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2025-08-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S513119
Sinclair Steele, Niranjan Nayak, Yehia Mohamed, Debadatta Panigrahi
{"title":"医学mcq的产生和使用:叙述性回顾。","authors":"Sinclair Steele, Niranjan Nayak, Yehia Mohamed, Debadatta Panigrahi","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S513119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of multiple-choice questions in medical assessments is ubiquitous and extends in breadth from undergraduate formative and summative assessments to postgraduate certifications and reaccreditations. Despite the clear importance of multiple-choice questions in medicine, in the last thirty years there has been no authoritative peer reviewed publication that reviews the overall generation and use of multiple-choice questions in medicine. Producing effective and useful medical multiple-choice questions is as much of an art form as it is a science - unfortunately, every new writer of such questions tends to rely on their own experiences of such questions and then travel along their individual and tortuous pathway to produce \"acceptable\" questions. Our review article provides practical guidance and information that will assist writers of medical multiple-choice questions. As well as extensively discussing common pitfalls, we provide a checklist that represents optimum practice in question generation. We directly compare examples of good and poor multiple-choice questions. We describe the metrics for measuring effective questions; specifically, the discrimination and difficulty indices. We discuss the optimum approach to training faculty to produce <i>flawless</i> multiple-choice questions. We describe the potential role and benefits of students in writing multiple-choice questions. We address the current and future effectiveness of the major artificial intelligence software brands in developing objectively functional multiple-choice questions. We continue to support the pragmatic use of MCQs in undergraduate and postgraduate medical training, with the <i>caveat</i> that ongoing training is made available to the creators in order to facilitate the production of the highest quality questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"16 ","pages":"1331-1340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Sinclair Steele, Niranjan Nayak, Yehia Mohamed, Debadatta Panigrahi\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/AMEP.S513119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of multiple-choice questions in medical assessments is ubiquitous and extends in breadth from undergraduate formative and summative assessments to postgraduate certifications and reaccreditations. Despite the clear importance of multiple-choice questions in medicine, in the last thirty years there has been no authoritative peer reviewed publication that reviews the overall generation and use of multiple-choice questions in medicine. Producing effective and useful medical multiple-choice questions is as much of an art form as it is a science - unfortunately, every new writer of such questions tends to rely on their own experiences of such questions and then travel along their individual and tortuous pathway to produce \\\"acceptable\\\" questions. Our review article provides practical guidance and information that will assist writers of medical multiple-choice questions. As well as extensively discussing common pitfalls, we provide a checklist that represents optimum practice in question generation. We directly compare examples of good and poor multiple-choice questions. We describe the metrics for measuring effective questions; specifically, the discrimination and difficulty indices. We discuss the optimum approach to training faculty to produce <i>flawless</i> multiple-choice questions. We describe the potential role and benefits of students in writing multiple-choice questions. We address the current and future effectiveness of the major artificial intelligence software brands in developing objectively functional multiple-choice questions. We continue to support the pragmatic use of MCQs in undergraduate and postgraduate medical training, with the <i>caveat</i> that ongoing training is made available to the creators in order to facilitate the production of the highest quality questions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Medical Education and Practice\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1331-1340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335258/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.S513119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S513119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多项选择题在医学评估中的使用是普遍存在的,其广度从本科形成性和总结性评估延伸到研究生认证和再认证。尽管多项选择题在医学中的重要性显而易见,但在过去的三十年里,没有权威的同行评议出版物对多项选择题在医学中的总体产生和使用进行了回顾。制作有效而有用的医学选择题既是一门科学,也是一门艺术——不幸的是,每一个新出题的人都倾向于依靠他们自己对这些问题的经验,然后沿着他们个人曲折的道路去制作“可接受的”问题。我们的综述文章提供了实用的指导和信息,将有助于医学选择题的作者。除了广泛讨论常见缺陷之外,我们还提供了一个清单,它代表了问题生成中的最佳实践。我们直接比较好的和不好的多项选择题的例子。我们描述了衡量有效问题的指标;具体来说,是判别指标和难度指标。我们讨论了培养教师做出完美的多项选择题的最佳方法。我们描述了学生在写作多项选择题中的潜在作用和好处。我们讨论了当前和未来主要人工智能软件品牌在开发客观功能选择题方面的有效性。我们继续支持在本科和研究生医学培训中务实地使用mcq,但需要注意的是,要向出题者提供持续培训,以促进提出最高质量的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review.

The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review.

The use of multiple-choice questions in medical assessments is ubiquitous and extends in breadth from undergraduate formative and summative assessments to postgraduate certifications and reaccreditations. Despite the clear importance of multiple-choice questions in medicine, in the last thirty years there has been no authoritative peer reviewed publication that reviews the overall generation and use of multiple-choice questions in medicine. Producing effective and useful medical multiple-choice questions is as much of an art form as it is a science - unfortunately, every new writer of such questions tends to rely on their own experiences of such questions and then travel along their individual and tortuous pathway to produce "acceptable" questions. Our review article provides practical guidance and information that will assist writers of medical multiple-choice questions. As well as extensively discussing common pitfalls, we provide a checklist that represents optimum practice in question generation. We directly compare examples of good and poor multiple-choice questions. We describe the metrics for measuring effective questions; specifically, the discrimination and difficulty indices. We discuss the optimum approach to training faculty to produce flawless multiple-choice questions. We describe the potential role and benefits of students in writing multiple-choice questions. We address the current and future effectiveness of the major artificial intelligence software brands in developing objectively functional multiple-choice questions. We continue to support the pragmatic use of MCQs in undergraduate and postgraduate medical training, with the caveat that ongoing training is made available to the creators in order to facilitate the production of the highest quality questions.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信