Cargando…

Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods

BACKGROUND: Scoring and awarding credit are more complex for multiple-select items than for single-choice items. Forty-one different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to 2 multiple-select multiple-choice item types (Pick-N and Multiple-True-False [MTF]) from existing examination data. OBJ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kanzow, Philipp, Schmidt, Dennis, Herrmann, Manfred, Wassmann, Torsten, Wiegand, Annette, Raupach, Tobias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36841970
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43792
_version_ 1785031233777958912
author Kanzow, Philipp
Schmidt, Dennis
Herrmann, Manfred
Wassmann, Torsten
Wiegand, Annette
Raupach, Tobias
author_facet Kanzow, Philipp
Schmidt, Dennis
Herrmann, Manfred
Wassmann, Torsten
Wiegand, Annette
Raupach, Tobias
author_sort Kanzow, Philipp
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Scoring and awarding credit are more complex for multiple-select items than for single-choice items. Forty-one different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to 2 multiple-select multiple-choice item types (Pick-N and Multiple-True-False [MTF]) from existing examination data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to calculate and compare the mean scores for both item types by applying different scoring methods, and to investigate the effect of item quality on mean raw scores and the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (≥0.6). METHODS: Items and responses from examinees (ie, marking events) were retrieved from previous examinations. Different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to the existing examination data to calculate corresponding examination scores. In addition, item quality was assessed using a validated checklist. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and multiple logistic regression analysis (P<.05). RESULTS: We analyzed 1931 marking events of 48 Pick-N items and 828 marking events of 18 MTF items. For both item types, scoring results widely differed between scoring methods (minimum: 0.02, maximum: 0.98; P<.001). Both the use of an inappropriate item type (34 items) and the presence of cues (30 items) impacted the scoring results. Inappropriately used Pick-N items resulted in lower mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.93; P<.001), while inappropriately used MTF items resulted in higher mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.85; P=.001). Mean raw scores were higher for MTF items with cues than for those without cues (0.91 vs 0.8; P<.001), while mean raw scores for Pick-N items with and without cues did not differ (0.89 vs 0.90; P=.09). Item quality also impacted the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (odds ratio ≤6.977). CONCLUSIONS: Educators should pay attention when using multiple-select multiple-choice items and select the most appropriate item type. Different item types, different scoring methods, and presence of cues are likely to impact examinees’ scores and overall examination results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10131704
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101317042023-04-27 Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods Kanzow, Philipp Schmidt, Dennis Herrmann, Manfred Wassmann, Torsten Wiegand, Annette Raupach, Tobias JMIR Med Educ Original Paper BACKGROUND: Scoring and awarding credit are more complex for multiple-select items than for single-choice items. Forty-one different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to 2 multiple-select multiple-choice item types (Pick-N and Multiple-True-False [MTF]) from existing examination data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to calculate and compare the mean scores for both item types by applying different scoring methods, and to investigate the effect of item quality on mean raw scores and the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (≥0.6). METHODS: Items and responses from examinees (ie, marking events) were retrieved from previous examinations. Different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to the existing examination data to calculate corresponding examination scores. In addition, item quality was assessed using a validated checklist. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and multiple logistic regression analysis (P<.05). RESULTS: We analyzed 1931 marking events of 48 Pick-N items and 828 marking events of 18 MTF items. For both item types, scoring results widely differed between scoring methods (minimum: 0.02, maximum: 0.98; P<.001). Both the use of an inappropriate item type (34 items) and the presence of cues (30 items) impacted the scoring results. Inappropriately used Pick-N items resulted in lower mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.93; P<.001), while inappropriately used MTF items resulted in higher mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.85; P=.001). Mean raw scores were higher for MTF items with cues than for those without cues (0.91 vs 0.8; P<.001), while mean raw scores for Pick-N items with and without cues did not differ (0.89 vs 0.90; P=.09). Item quality also impacted the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (odds ratio ≤6.977). CONCLUSIONS: Educators should pay attention when using multiple-select multiple-choice items and select the most appropriate item type. Different item types, different scoring methods, and presence of cues are likely to impact examinees’ scores and overall examination results. JMIR Publications 2023-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10131704/ /pubmed/36841970 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43792 Text en ©Philipp Kanzow, Dennis Schmidt, Manfred Herrmann, Torsten Wassmann, Annette Wiegand, Tobias Raupach. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 27.03.2023. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Kanzow, Philipp
Schmidt, Dennis
Herrmann, Manfred
Wassmann, Torsten
Wiegand, Annette
Raupach, Tobias
Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title_full Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title_fullStr Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title_full_unstemmed Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title_short Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods
title_sort use of multiple-select multiple-choice items in a dental undergraduate curriculum: retrospective study involving the application of different scoring methods
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36841970
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43792
work_keys_str_mv AT kanzowphilipp useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods
AT schmidtdennis useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods
AT herrmannmanfred useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods
AT wassmanntorsten useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods
AT wiegandannette useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods
AT raupachtobias useofmultipleselectmultiplechoiceitemsinadentalundergraduatecurriculumretrospectivestudyinvolvingtheapplicationofdifferentscoringmethods