Suppr超能文献

骨科及其他专业本科课程中使用的多项选择题的主观质量。

Subjective quality of multiple choice questions used in undergraduate courses in orthopedics and other specialties.

作者信息

Husnain Amina, Khan Asif, Khan Muhammad Umar, Hussain Faisal Nazeer

机构信息

Amina Husnain, FCPS. Assoc. Prof. Medical Unit-I, Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.

Asif Khan, MS Orth. Senior Registrar Orthopedics, Avicenna Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan.

出版信息

Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Nov-Dec;36(7):1618-1622. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.7.2864.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) can sample broad domains of knowledge efficiently and reliably. The MCQs of lower order C1(Cognitive Level1=Recall of knowledge) do not fulfill this purpose and those of higher cognitive order C2 (Cognitive Level2=Interpret) &C3(Cognitive Level3=Analyze) are better at assessing the problem solving capabilities of the student. Every good educational activity must be supported by quality examination to complete the objectives of a curriculum. The objective of the study was to evaluate MCQs presently being used in internal examinations of medical colleges in Lahore.

METHODS

Papers consisting of MCQs from Orthopedics other specialties were collected in June 2019 from different medical colleges of Lahore and reviewed by a senior medical teacher without blinding and without his knowing the scores the students had been awarded before. Question statement, clinical scenarios, options and other mistakes were assessed in each item on predetermined criteria. Cognitive level of the item was determined if it was asking for a recall/identify/ analyze response. The results were tabulated and compared in two groups i.e. Miscellaneous and Orthopedics.

RESULTS

Most of the items(total=589) in both groups were of C1 cognitive level though Orthopedics (229) were slightly better (χ2 = 49.882 P-Value = 0.000 (Statistically Significant). Miscellaneous group (360) was better in quality in making clinical scenarios (χ2 = 29.952 P-Value = 0.000 (Statistically Significant) and writing a question statement without confusion. Options were better written in both groups. A good percentage of items needed to be corrected for mistakes in spellings, grammar and segregation into under graduate level.

CONCLUSIONS

The cognitive level of assessment tool s MCQs is quiet low in both groups especially clinical scenario construction can be improved. Mistakes in spellings, grammar and conceptual mediocrity is common in both groups.

摘要

背景与目的

多项选择题(MCQs)能够有效且可靠地考查广泛的知识领域。低阶C1(认知水平1 = 知识回忆)的多项选择题无法实现这一目的,而高阶认知水平C2(认知水平2 = 解释)和C3(认知水平3 = 分析)的多项选择题在评估学生解决问题的能力方面表现更佳。每一项良好的教育活动都必须有高质量的考试作为支撑,以实现课程目标。本研究的目的是评估目前拉合尔医学院内部考试中使用的多项选择题。

方法

2019年6月,从拉合尔不同医学院收集了包含骨科及其他专业多项选择题的试卷,并由一位资深医学教师进行审阅,审阅过程未设盲,且该教师事先不知道学生的得分情况。根据预定标准对每个题目中的问题陈述、临床情景、选项及其他错误进行评估。确定题目要求的是回忆/识别/分析性回答,以此判断题目的认知水平。将结果制成表格,并在杂项和骨科两组中进行比较。

结果

两组中的大多数题目(总计 = 589)属于C1认知水平,不过骨科的题目(229道)表现稍好(χ2 = 49.882,P值 = 0.000,具有统计学意义)。杂项组(360道)在构建临床情景方面质量更好(χ2 = 29.952,P值 = 0.000,具有统计学意义),且问题陈述清晰无误。两组的选项编写都较好。相当一部分题目在拼写、语法以及本科水平分类方面存在错误,需要进行纠正。

结论

两组中评估工具多项选择题的认知水平都很低,尤其是临床情景构建方面有待改进。两组中拼写、语法错误以及概念平庸的情况都很常见。

相似文献

6
Writing Multiple Choice Questions-Has the Student Become the Master?编写多项选择题——学生是否已经成为主人?
Teach Learn Med. 2023 Jun-Jul;35(3):356-367. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2022.2050240. Epub 2022 May 1.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验