• 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

在临床能力评估中,多项选择题和患者管理问题题型的可靠性、有效性和效率

Reliability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice question and patient management problem item formats in assessment of clinical competence.

作者信息

Norcini J J, Swanson D B, Grosso L J, Webster G D

出版信息

Med Educ. 1985 May;19(3):238-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01314.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01314.x
PMID:4010571
Abstract

Despite a lack of face validity, there continues to be heavy reliance on objective paper-and-pencil measures of clinical competence. Among these measures, the most common item formats are patient management problems (PMPs) and three types of multiple choice questions (MCQs): one-best-answer (A-types); matching questions (M-types); and multiple true/false questions (X-types). The purpose of this study is to compare the reliability, validity and efficiency of these item formats with particular focus on whether MCQs and PMPs measure different aspects of clinical competence. Analyses revealed reliabilities of 0.72 or better for all item formats; the MCQ formats were most reliable. Similarly, efficiency analyses (reliability per unit of testing time) demonstrated the superiority of MCQs. Evidence for validity obtained through correlations of both programme directors' ratings and criterion group membership with item format scores also favoured MCQs. More important, however, is whether MCQs and PMPs measure the same or different aspects of clinical competence. Regression analyses of the scores on the validity measures (programme directors' ratings and criterion group membership) indicated that MCQs and PMPs seem to be measuring predominantly the same thing. MCQs contribute a small unique variance component over and above PMPs, while PMPs make the smallest unique contribution. As a whole, these results indicate that MCQs are more efficient, reliable and valid than PMPs.

摘要

尽管缺乏表面效度,但对临床能力的客观纸笔测试仍存在严重依赖。在这些测试中,最常见的题型是患者管理问题(PMPs)和三种多项选择题(MCQs):最佳答案单项选择题(A 型);匹配题(M 型);以及多项是非题(X 型)。本研究的目的是比较这些题型的信度、效度和效率,特别关注多项选择题和患者管理问题是否衡量临床能力的不同方面。分析显示,所有题型的信度均为 0.72 或更高;多项选择题型最为可靠。同样,效率分析(每测试单位时间的信度)表明多项选择题具有优势。通过项目主任评分以及标准组成员身份与题型分数的相关性获得的效度证据也支持多项选择题。然而,更重要的是多项选择题和患者管理问题是衡量临床能力的相同方面还是不同方面。对效度指标(项目主任评分和标准组成员身份)分数的回归分析表明,多项选择题和患者管理问题似乎主要衡量的是同一件事。多项选择题在患者管理问题之外贡献了一个小的独特方差成分,而患者管理问题的独特贡献最小。总体而言,这些结果表明,多项选择题比患者管理问题更高效、可靠且有效。

相似文献

1
Reliability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice question and patient management problem item formats in assessment of clinical competence.在临床能力评估中,多项选择题和患者管理问题题型的可靠性、有效性和效率
Med Educ. 1985 May;19(3):238-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01314.x.
2
A comparison of knowledge, synthesis, and clinical judgment. Multiple-choice questions in the assessment of physician competence.知识、综合能力与临床判断力的比较。评估医师能力的多项选择题。
Eval Health Prof. 1984 Dec;7(4):485-99. doi: 10.1177/016327878400700409.
3
Reducing the number of options on multiple-choice questions: response time, psychometrics and standard setting.减少多项选择题的选项数量:反应时间、心理测量学和标准设定。
Med Educ. 2014 Oct;48(10):1020-7. doi: 10.1111/medu.12525.
4
Reliability of a 25-item low-stakes multiple-choice assessment of bronchoscopic knowledge.一项25题的低风险支气管镜知识多项选择题评估的可靠性
Chest. 2009 Feb;135(2):315-321. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-0867. Epub 2008 Oct 10.
5
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.
6
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.
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
Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study.针对质量参数的三选项、四选项和五选项多项选择题测试之间的比较:一项随机研究。
Indian J Pharmacol. 2016 Sep-Oct;48(5):571-575. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.190757.
9
Assessment of medical knowledge: the pros and cons of using true/false multiple choice questions.医学知识评估:使用是非选择题的利弊
Natl Med J India. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):225-8.
10
Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.终身学习的教育技巧:为继续医学教育活动和自我评估模块编写多项选择题。
Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):543-51. doi: 10.1148/rg.262055145.

引用本文的文献

1
Education Research: Teaching Neurologic Emergencies Through Serious Games: A Randomized Comparative Intervention Study.教育研究:通过严肃游戏教授神经系统急症:一项随机对照干预研究。
Neurol Educ. 2025 Jun 11;4(2):e200217. doi: 10.1212/NE9.0000000000200217. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Assessing the Difficulty and Long-Term Retention of Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Through Multiple-Choice Questions: A Longitudinal Study.通过选择题评估事实性知识和概念性知识的难度及长期记忆效果:一项纵向研究
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2024 Dec 14;15:1217-1228. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S478193. eCollection 2024.
3
MCQs in-training examination scores of the surgical residency program in Thailand: the relationship between medical school vs public health-based training institutions.
泰国外科住院医师培训项目的 MCQs 考试成绩:医学院与公共卫生为基础的培训机构之间的关系。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Sep 27;24(1):1037. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06063-0.
4
Back to basics: reflective take on role of MCQs in undergraduate Malaysian dental professional qualifying exams.回归基础:对马来西亚本科牙科专业资格考试中多项选择题作用的反思
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Nov 30;10:1287924. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1287924. eCollection 2023.
5
Scoring Single-Response Multiple-Choice Items: Scoping Review and Comparison of Different Scoring Methods.单项选择题评分:不同评分方法的范围审查与比较
JMIR Med Educ. 2023 May 19;9:e44084. doi: 10.2196/44084.
6
Student-Written Multiple-Choice Questions-a Practical and Educational Approach.学生编写的多项选择题——一种实用且具教育意义的方法。
Med Sci Educ. 2018 Nov 6;29(1):41-43. doi: 10.1007/s40670-018-00646-5. eCollection 2019 Mar.
7
Knowledge self-monitoring, efficiency, and determinants of self-confidence statement in multiple choice questions in medical students.医学学生多选题中知识自我监测、效率和自信心陈述的决定因素。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Nov 19;20(1):445. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02352-6.
8
Evaluation of the effect of items' format and type on psychometric properties of sixth year pharmacy students clinical clerkship assessment items.评价项目格式和类型对第六年药学专业临床实习评估项目心理测量特性的影响。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jun 12;20(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02107-3.
9
Assessing Clinical Reasoning: Targeting the Higher Levels of the Pyramid.评估临床推理:瞄准金字塔的更高层次。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1631-1636. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04953-4.
10
Certainty rating in pre-and post-tests of study modules in an online clinical pharmacy course - A pilot study to evaluate teaching and learning.在线临床药学课程中学习模块的课前和课后测试的确定性评级——一项评估教学与学习的试点研究
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Oct 14;16(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0783-1.