Department of Pharmacology, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 May 24;24(1):572. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05569-x.
Very Short Answer Questions (VSAQs) reduce cueing and simulate better real-clinical practice compared with multiple-choice questions (MCQs). While integrating them into formative exams has potential, addressing marking time and ideal occasions and items is crucial. This study gathers validity evidence of novel immediate self-feedback VSAQ (ISF-VSAQ) format and determines the optimal number of items and occasions for reliable assessment.
Ninety-four third-year pre-clinical students took two ten-item ISF-VSAQ exams on cardiovascular drugs. Each question comprised two sections: (1) Questions with space for student responses and (2) a list of possible correct answers offering partial-credit scores ranging from 0.00 to 1.00, along with self-marking and self-feedback options to indicate whether they fully, partially, or did not understand the possible answers. Messick's validity framework guided the collection of validity evidence.
Validity evidence included five sources: (1) Content: The expert reviewed the ISF-VSAQ format, and the question was aligned with a standard examination blueprint. (2) Response process: Before starting, students received an example and guide to the ISF-VSAQ, and the teacher detailed the steps in the initial session to aid self-assessment. Unexpected answers were comprehensively reviewed by experts. (3) Internal structure: The Cronbach alphas are good for both occasions (≥ 0.70). A generalizability study revealed Phi-coefficients of 0.60, 0.71, 0.76, and 0.79 for one to four occasions with ten items, respectively. One occasion requires twenty-five items for acceptable reliability (Phi-coefficient = 0.72). (4) Relations to other variables: Inter-rater reliability between self-marking and teacher is excellent for each item (r(186) = 0.87-0.98,p = 0.001). (5) Consequences: Path analysis revealed that the self-reflected understanding score in the second attempt directly affected the final MCQ score (β = 0.25,p = 0.033). However, the VSAQ score did not. Regarding perceptions, over 80% of students strongly agreed/agreed that the ISF-VSAQ format enhances problem analysis, presents realistic scenarios, develops knowledge, offers feedback, and supports electronic usability.
Electronic ISF-VSAQs enhanced understanding elevates learning outcomes, rendering them suitable for formative assessments with clinical scenarios. Increasing the number of occasions effectively enhances reliability. While self-marking is reliable and may reduce grading efforts, instructors should review answers to identify common student errors.
与多项选择题(MCQs)相比,简短回答问题(VSAQs)可减少提示并更好地模拟真实临床实践。虽然将其纳入形成性考试具有潜力,但确定标记时间、理想场合和项目至关重要。本研究收集了新型即时自我反馈 VSAQ(ISF-VSAQ)格式的有效性证据,并确定了可靠评估的最佳项目和场合数量。
94 名三年级临床医学预科学生参加了两次心血管药物十项 ISF-VSAQ 考试。每个问题都包含两个部分:(1)学生有作答空间的问题和(2)包含可能正确答案的列表,提供从 0.00 到 1.00 的部分分数,以及自我标记和自我反馈选项,以指示他们是否完全、部分或不理解可能的答案。米切克的有效性框架指导了有效性证据的收集。
有效性证据包括五个来源:(1)内容:专家审查了 ISF-VSAQ 格式,问题与标准考试蓝图一致。(2)反应过程:在开始之前,学生收到了 ISF-VSAQ 的示例和指南,教师在初始会议中详细说明了步骤,以帮助自我评估。专家全面审查了意外答案。(3)内部结构:两次考试的克朗巴赫阿尔法系数都很好(≥0.70)。概化研究显示,一次到四次十项考试的 Phi 系数分别为 0.60、0.71、0.76 和 0.79。一次考试需要二十五项才能获得可接受的可靠性(Phi 系数=0.72)。(4)与其他变量的关系:每个项目的自我标记和教师之间的评分者间信度都非常好(r(186)=0.87-0.98,p=0.001)。(5)后果:路径分析显示,第二次尝试中的自我反思理解得分直接影响最终 MCQ 得分(β=0.25,p=0.033)。然而,VSAQ 分数没有。关于看法,超过 80%的学生强烈同意/同意 ISF-VSAQ 格式增强了问题分析、呈现了现实场景、发展了知识、提供了反馈,并支持电子可用性。
电子 ISF-VSAQ 增强了理解,提高了学习成果,使其适合具有临床场景的形成性评估。增加考试次数可有效提高可靠性。虽然自我评分是可靠的,并且可以减少评分工作,但教师应审查答案以识别学生的常见错误。