Strategic Use Of MCQs In Undergraduate Medical Students To Improve Objectivity Of Formative Assessment
Strategic Use Of MCQs In Undergraduate Medical Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v3i2.2005Keywords:
MCQs, formative assessment, objective examination, reliability, item analysisAbstract
Background and Objectives: Assessment is a matter of continuing concern for medical teacher as it is supposed to steer student learning. Globally there is an increasing trend to move from subjectivity to objectivity. While the universities are custodial for modifying the examinations system as a summative assessment, what is more important for teachers is to mould their formative assessment. University examinations are criticized to be highly subjective and inadequate for covering full range of topics in Pharmacology. Further there is little scope for providing feedback to the students for continuous learning and improvement. In response to this it was decided to introduce multiple choice questions (MCQs) as a tool for formative assessment. Methodology: In the present study, the multiple choice questions were given along with the subjective questionsfrom the same topic to the students. The main aim was to improve the objectivity in students’ assessment by introducing MCQs as a formative assessment tool. To evaluate the affectivity of this pattern of assessment from the student’s viewpoint, we designed a feed back questionnaire which was analyzed. The MCQs were evaluated by doing Item analysis. Results: The overall feedback revealed that 89% of the students were of opinion that MCQs preparation and examination helped them in learning the subject, self studying, reasoning and enhancement of clinical skills. The present study also clearly indicates that MCQs alone are not sufficient to assess learning and should be used along with subjective tests. Conclusion: To make testing and assessment both fair and consequently valid, MCQs should be used strategically to test important subject content and it should be aligned with subjective tests.
References
research and practical implications. Adv Health SciEduc,1996; 1, 41-67.
2. Paul McCoubrie. Improving the fairness of multiple choice questions: a literature review. Medical teacher,2004; 26 (8), 709 – 712.
3. Case SM and Swanson DB. Constructing Written test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences.2001; 3rd ed, National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia.
4. Hubbard JP and Clemans WV. Multiple Choice Examinations in Medicine - a guide for examiner and examinee,1961; Lea &Febiger, Philadelphia.
5. Veloski JJ, Rabinowitz HK, Robeson MR, Young PR. Patients don’t present with five choices: an alternative to multiple-choice tests in assessing physicians’ competence. Academic Medicine,1999; 74, 539-546.
6. Singh T. Test and Item Analysis. In Singh T, Singh D, Paul VK. Principlesof Medical Education. 2nded. New Delhi:IAP Education centre; 2000. p81-82.
7. Croak T. The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Rev Educ Res, 1988; 55, 438–481.
8. Sebatanne E. Assessment and classroom learning: a response to Black and Wiliam. Assessment Educ,1998; 5, 123–130.
9. Newble D and Jaeger K. The effect of assessment and examination on the learning of medical students. Med Educ,1983; 17, 165–171.
10. Ramaprasad A. On the definition of feedback. Behav Science, 1983; 28, 4–13.
11. Sadler D. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Science,1989; 18, 119–144.
12. Rolfe I and McPherson J. Formative assessment: how am I doing? Lancet, 1995; 345, 837–839.
13. Schultz P, Davis H. Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. EducPsychol, 2000; 35, 243–256.
14. Frederiksen N. The real test bias influences of testing on teaching and learning. Am psycho,1984; 39, 193-202.
15. Schuwrith LW, Van der Vleuten CP, Donkers HH. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple choice questions. Med Educ, 1996;30, 44-49.16. Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Edu,2004; 38, 974-979.
17. Srivastava A, Dhar A, Aggarwal CS. Why MCQ? Indian journal of surgery,2004; 66, 246-248.
18. Singh T. Evaluation of knowledge. In Singh T, Singh D, Paul VK. Principlesof Medical Education.2nded. New Delhi:IAP Education centre; 2000. p54.
19. Van Der Vleuten CP, Norman GR, De Graaff E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issue of reliability. Med Edu,1991; 25, 110-118.
20. Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287: 226-35
21. Epstein RM, Dannefer EF, Nofziger AC, et al. Comprehensive assessment of professional competence: the Rochester experiment. Teach Learn Med,2004; 16, 186-196.
22. Swanson DB and Case SM. Assessment in basic science instructions: direction for practice and research. Adv Health SciEdu 1997; 2: 71-84.
