Khan Junaid Sarfraz, Mukhtar Osama, Tabasum Saima, Shaheen Naveed, Farooq M, Irfan M Abdul, Sattar Ajmal, Nabeel M, Imran M, Rafique Sadia, Iqbal Maryam, Afzal M Sheraz, Hameed M Shahbaz, Habib Maryam, Jabeen Uzma, Mubbashar Malik Hussain
Department of Examination, University of Health Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010 Apr-Jun;22(2):191-5.
A number of evaluation tools for assessing the cognitive and affective domains in accordance with Bloom's taxonomy are available for summative assessment. At the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and Structured Answer Questions (SAQs) are used for the evaluation of the cognitive domain at all six hierarch levels of taxonomy using the tables of specifications to ensure content validity. The rationale of having two evaluation tools seemingly similar in their evaluative competency yet differing in feasibility of construction, administration and marking is being challenged in this study.
The MCQ and SAQ awards of the ten percent sample population amounting to 985 students in fifteen Medical and Dental Colleges across Punjab were entered into SPSS-15 and correlated according to the cognitive and affective level of assessment in relation to the Bloom's taxonomy and their grouping in the Tables of Specifications, using parametric tests. 3494 anonymously administered questionnaires were analyzed using ethnograph.
No statistically significant difference was found in the mean marks obtained by the students when MCQs and SAQs were compared according to their groupings in the Tables of Specifications at all levels of cognitive hierarchical testing. End-of-yearcognitive level testing targets set were not met and more questions were set at the lower cognitive testing levels. Expenses incurred in setting MCQs and SAQs were comparable but conduct and assessment costs for MCQs and SAQs were 6% and 94% of the total respectively. In both MCQs and SAQs students performed better at higher cognitive testing levels whereas the SAQs and MCQs were able to marginally test the lower levels of affective domain only. Student's feedback showed that attempting MCQs required critical thinking, experience and practice.
MCQs are more cost effective means at levels of cognitive domain assessment.
有许多用于根据布鲁姆分类法评估认知和情感领域的评估工具可用于总结性评估。在拉合尔健康科学大学，使用选择题（MCQs）和结构化答案问题（SAQs），通过规格表在分类法的所有六个层次水平上评估认知领域，以确保内容效度。本研究对拥有两种评估工具的基本原理提出了挑战，这两种评估工具在评估能力上看似相似，但在构建、管理和评分的可行性方面存在差异。
将旁遮普邦15所医学和牙科学院中占样本总数10%的985名学生的MCQ和SAQ成绩输入SPSS - 15，并根据与布鲁姆分类法相关的认知和情感评估水平以及它们在规格表中的分组，使用参数检验进行相关性分析。使用民族志方法对3494份匿名调查问卷进行了分析。
在所有认知层次测试水平上，根据学生在规格表中的分组对MCQ和SAQ进行比较时，未发现学生获得的平均分数有统计学上的显著差异。未达到年终设定的认知水平测试目标，且在较低认知测试水平上设置的问题更多。设置MCQ和SAQ的费用相当，但MCQ和SAQ的实施和评估成本分别占总成本的6%和94%。在MCQ和SAQ中，学生在较高认知测试水平上表现更好，而SAQ和MCQ仅能勉强测试情感领域的较低水平。学生反馈表明，回答MCQ需要批判性思维、经验和练习。
在认知领域评估水平上，MCQ是更具成本效益的方式。
