• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

短文问题与多项选择题作为临床生物化学评估工具的鉴别力

Discrimination Power of Short Essay Questions Versus Multiple Choice Questions as an Assessment Tool in Clinical Biochemistry.

作者信息

Eldakhakhny Basmah, Elsamanoudy Ayman Z

机构信息

Clinical Biochemistry, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Medicine, Jeddah, SAU.

Medical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, EGY.

出版信息

Cureus. 2023 Feb 24;15(2):e35427. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35427. eCollection 2023 Feb.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.35427
PMID:36987482
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10040235/
Abstract

Assessment is fundamental to the educational process. Multiple choice questions (MCQs) and short essay questions (SEQs) are the most widely used assessment method in medical school. The current study evaluated the discriminating value of SEQs compared to MCQs as assessment tools in clinical biochemistry and correlated undergraduate students' SEQ scores with their overall scores during the academic years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. This is a descriptive-analytical study in which MCQ and SEQ papers of clinical biochemistry were analyzed. The mean score for SEQs in males was 66.7 ± 1.2 and for females it was 64.0 ± 1.1 SEM, with a p-value of 0.09; for MCQs, the mean score for males was 68.5 ± 0.9 SEM and for females it was 72.6 ± 0.8. When analyzing the difficulty index (DI) and discrimination factor (DF) of the questions, MCQs have a mean DI of 0.70 ± 0.01,and DF of 0.05 to 0.6. SEQs have a mean DI of 0.73 ± 0.03 and DF of 0.68 ± 0.01; there was a significant difference between the DF of MCQs and SEQs (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference between SEQs and MCQs when categorizing students based on their scores, except for A-scored students. According to the current study, SEQs have a higher discriminating ability than MCQs and help differentiate high-achieving students from low-achieving students.

摘要

评估是教育过程的基础。多项选择题(MCQs)和短文简答题(SEQs)是医学院最广泛使用的评估方法。本研究评估了短文简答题与多项选择题相比,作为临床生物化学评估工具的区分价值,并将2021 - 2022学年和2022 - 2023学年本科学生的短文简答题成绩与其总成绩进行了关联。这是一项描述性分析研究,对临床生物化学的多项选择题和短文简答题试卷进行了分析。男性短文简答题的平均成绩为66.7±1.2,女性为64.0±1.1标准误,p值为0.09;多项选择题方面,男性平均成绩为68.5±0.9标准误,女性为72.6±0.8。在分析问题的难度指数(DI)和区分度系数(DF)时,多项选择题的平均难度指数为0.70±0.01,区分度系数为0.05至0.6。短文简答题的平均难度指数为0.73±0.03,区分度系数为0.68±0.01;多项选择题和短文简答题的区分度系数存在显著差异(p < 0.0001)。此外,除了A等级的学生外,根据学生成绩进行分类时,短文简答题和多项选择题之间存在显著差异。根据本研究,短文简答题比多项选择题具有更高的区分能力,有助于区分成绩优异的学生和成绩较差的学生。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/c31f9eed2b14/cureus-0015-00000035427-i03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/7828200fbb55/cureus-0015-00000035427-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/af2ff7f998c7/cureus-0015-00000035427-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/c31f9eed2b14/cureus-0015-00000035427-i03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/7828200fbb55/cureus-0015-00000035427-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/af2ff7f998c7/cureus-0015-00000035427-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2b73/10040235/c31f9eed2b14/cureus-0015-00000035427-i03.jpg

相似文献

1
Discrimination Power of Short Essay Questions Versus Multiple Choice Questions as an Assessment Tool in Clinical Biochemistry.短文问题与多项选择题作为临床生物化学评估工具的鉴别力
Cureus. 2023 Feb 24;15(2):e35427. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35427. eCollection 2023 Feb.
2
A comparative study of students' performance in preclinical physiology assessed by multiple choice and short essay questions.一项关于通过多项选择题和短文问题评估学生临床前生理学表现的比较研究。
Afr J Med Med Sci. 2000 Sep-Dec;29(3-4):201-5.
3
Comparative assessment of multiple choice questions versus short essay questions in pharmacology examinations.药理学考试中多项选择题与短文简答题的比较评估
Indian J Med Sci. 2010 Mar;64(3):118-24.
4
A comparison of clinical-scenario (case cluster) versus stand-alone multiple choice questions in a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate medicine.本科医学基于问题的学习环境中临床情景(病例组)与独立多项选择题的比较。
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2016 Nov 11;12(1):14-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.08.014. eCollection 2017 Feb.
5
Educational implications of assessing learning outcomes with multiple choice questions and short essay questions.多选题和简答题评估学习成果的教育意义。
Korean J Med Educ. 2023 Sep;35(3):285-290. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2023.266. Epub 2023 Aug 31.
6
Evaluation of Multiple Choice and Short Essay Question items in Basic Medical Sciences.基础医学多项选择题和简答题的评估。
Pak J Med Sci. 2014 Jan;30(1):3-6. doi: 10.12669/pjms.301.4458.
7
Correlation of MCQ and SEQ scores in written undergraduate ophthalmology assessment.本科眼科书面评估中选择题(MCQ)与简答题(SEQ)分数的相关性
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Mar;25(3):185-8.
8
Item Analysis of Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ)-Based Exam Efficiency Among Postgraduate Pediatric Medical Students: An Observational, Cross-Sectional Study From Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯研究生儿科医学生基于多项选择题考试效率的项目分析:一项观察性横断面研究
Cureus. 2024 Sep 11;16(9):e69151. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69151. eCollection 2024 Sep.
9
Effectiveness of longitudinal faculty development programs on MCQs items writing skills: A follow-up study.纵向教师发展计划对多项选择题编写技能的有效性:一项随访研究。
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 10;12(10):e0185895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185895. eCollection 2017.
10
A comparative study of students' performance in preclinical physiology assessed by short and long essays.一项通过短文和长文评估学生临床前生理学表现的比较研究。
Afr J Med Med Sci. 2000 Jun;29(2):155-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of modified essay questions (MEQs) as an assessment tool in third-year medical students' modular summative assessment.评估改良论述题(MEQs)作为三年级医学生模块总结性评估中的一种评估工具。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):1445. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06469-w.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessment of Higher Ordered Thinking in Medical Education: Multiple Choice Questions and Modified Essay Questions.医学教育中高阶思维的评估:多项选择题与改良简答题
MedEdPublish (2016). 2018 Jun 12;7:128. doi: 10.15694/mep.2018.0000128.1. eCollection 2018.
2
Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?论文及其他“开放式”问题在临床医学书面总结性评估中是否应保留一席之地?
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2.
3
Evaluation of Multiple Choice and Short Essay Question items in Basic Medical Sciences.
基础医学多项选择题和简答题的评估。
Pak J Med Sci. 2014 Jan;30(1):3-6. doi: 10.12669/pjms.301.4458.
4
Comparative assessment of multiple choice questions versus short essay questions in pharmacology examinations.药理学考试中多项选择题与短文简答题的比较评估
Indian J Med Sci. 2010 Mar;64(3):118-24.
5
A framework for improving the quality of multiple-choice assessments.提高选择题质量的框架。
Nurse Educ. 2012 May-Jun;37(3):98-104. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0b013e31825041d0.
6
Evaluation of Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) as a tool for Assessing the Cognitive Skills of Undergraduate Medical Students.评估改良短文问题(MEQ)和多项选择题(MCQ)作为评估本科医学生认知技能工具的效果。
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2011 Jan;5(1):39-43.
7
A comparison of student performance in multiple-choice and long essay questions in the MBBS stage I physiology examination at the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus).西印度群岛大学(莫纳校区)医学学士阶段 I 生理学考试中多项选择题和短文问答题中学生表现的比较。
Adv Physiol Educ. 2010 Jun;34(2):86-9. doi: 10.1152/advan.00087.2009.
8
Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper.本科教育中高阶认知技能的评估:改进的论文式题目还是多项选择题?研究论文。
BMC Med Educ. 2007 Nov 28;7:49. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-49.
9
Assessment in medical education.医学教育中的评估。
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054784.
10
The criteria and analysis of good multiple choice questions in a health professional setting.健康专业背景下优质多项选择题的标准与分析
Saudi Med J. 2005 Oct;26(10):1505-10.