Suppr超能文献

对大型一年级健康学院基础课程多项选择题及其干扰项使用情况的分析:评估从 5 选 1 变为 4 选 1 的效果。

Analysis of MCQ and distractor use in a large first year Health Faculty Foundation Program: assessing the effects of changing from five to four options.

机构信息

School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.

School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2018 Nov 7;18(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1346-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multiple choice questions are commonly used in summative assessment. It is still common practice for tertiary institutions and accrediting bodies to use five-option single best answer multiple choice questions, despite a substantial body of evidence showing that multiple choice questions with only three or four options provide effective and discriminatory assessment.

METHODS

In this study we investigated the distribution of distractor efficacy in exams from four large first-year undergraduate courses in chemistry and in anatomy and physiology in a Health Faculty; assessed the impact on overall student score after changing from five-option to four-option single best answer multiple choice questions; and assessed the impact of changing from five options to four options on item difficulty and discrimination.

RESULTS

For the five-option questions analysed, 19% had four effective distractors, which is higher than previous studies, but still a minority of questions. After changing from five to four options, the overall student performance on all multiple choice questions was slightly lower in the second offering of one course, slightly higher in the second offering of another course, and similar in the second offering for two courses. For a subset of questions that were used in both offerings, there were negligible differences in item difficulty and item discrimination between offerings.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide further evidence that five-option questions are not superior to four-option questions, with reduction to four options making little if any difference to overall performance, particularly when MCQ is used in conjunction with other assessment types (including short answer questions, and practical or laboratory assessment). Further areas of study that arise from these findings are: to investigate the reasons for resistance to changing established assessment practice within institutions and by accrediting bodies; and to analyse student perceptions of the impact of a reduced number of options in MCQ-based assessment.

摘要

背景

多项选择题常用于总结性评估。尽管有大量证据表明,只有三个或四个选项的多项选择题可以提供有效和有区别的评估,但在高等院校和认证机构中,仍普遍采用五个选项的单项最佳答案多项选择题。

方法

在这项研究中,我们调查了化学和解剖生理学四门大型大一基础课程考试中的干扰项效果分布;评估了从五个选项改为四个选项的单项最佳答案多项选择题后对学生总体成绩的影响;并评估了从五个选项改为四个选项对项目难度和区分度的影响。

结果

对于分析的五个选项问题,19%有四个有效的干扰项,这高于之前的研究,但仍然是少数问题。在从五个选项改为四个选项后,一门课程的第二次考试中,所有多项选择题的学生整体表现略低,另一门课程的第二次考试中略高,两门课程的第二次考试中相似。对于在两次考试中都使用的一组问题,项目难度和项目区分度在两次考试之间几乎没有差异。

结论

这些结果进一步证明,五个选项的问题并不优于四个选项的问题,减少到四个选项对总体表现几乎没有影响,尤其是当 MCQ 与其他评估类型(包括简答题和实践或实验室评估)结合使用时。这些发现带来了进一步的研究领域:调查机构和认证机构内抵制改变既定评估实践的原因;以及分析学生对 MCQ 评估中选项数量减少的影响的看法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f01/6223017/982e52b1a2c5/12909_2018_1346_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验