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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |