PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1265554

Misconceptions and miscarriages in multiple choice questions.

Abstract

A modification of the standard format of multiple choice question (MCQ) examinations, recently introduced in certain medical schools in this country, is decribed. The scheme allows for the variation of marks allocated to different in the paper, depending upon the relevance, importance and degree of difficulty of each question. However, the manner in which this new system is being implemented in some cases transgresses some fundamental principles of MCQ examinations. The consequence of this is that the average mark for the class is unintentionally low, with the good students separated from the main body of the class by a disproportionate number of marks. In addition, the examination lends itself to abuse by the enterprising student who is familar with the system of mark allocation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C W Melzer, S R Schach, J H Koeslag. 1976-04-03. Misconceptions and miscarriages in multiple choice questions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1265554/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗