ArticleBMC medical education2019
Barriers and facilitators to writing quality items for medical school assessments - a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Medical Assessment Validity with Generative AI: Lessons from Human-AI Interaction in Bloom's Taxonomy Classification.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- ItemSight: Development of a Shiny Application for Simplified Item Analysis of Type A Multiple-Choice Questions.Cureus · 2026Article
- Benchmarking publicly accessible large language models for high-myopia multiple-choice question generation in digital ophthalmic education and public health training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- When Assessment Theory Meets Generative AI: Reimagining SBA Design in Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4 in the development of family medicine residency examinations.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Large Language Models for the National Radiological Technologist Licensure Examination in Japan: Cross-Sectional Comparative Benchmarking and Evaluation of Model-Generated Items Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Automatic- and Transformer-Based Automatic Item Generation: A Critical Review.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
- Effects of a long term faculty development program on improvement in quality of MCQs: an impact evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Factors influencing clinician-educators' assessment practice in varied Southern contexts: a health behaviour theory perspective.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- Faculty Perception of Scenario-Based MCQs, SAQs, and MEQs in Medical Education at an Apex Institute.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Exploring the experiences of content experts with item vetting during item bank development.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and medical education: application in classroom instruction and student assessment using a pharmacology & therapeutics case study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Transitioning from Faculty-Written Examinations to National Board of Medical Examiners Custom Examinations in Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Implementation of the São Paulo Nursing Courses Consortium for the Progress Test: experience report.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
- Automated Item Generation: impact of item variants on performance and standard setting.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Improving Summative Assessment Through a Resource-Efficient Faculty Review Process.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.Medical education · 2021Article
- Knowledge of dental faculty in gulf cooperation council states of multiple-choice questions' item writing flaws.Medical education online · 2020Article
- Motivations of assessment item writers in medical programs: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProducing a sufficient quantity of quality items for use in medical school examinations is a continuing challenge in medical education. We conducted this scoping review to identify barriers and facilitators to writing good quality items and note gaps in the literature that are yet to be addressed.
methodsWe conducted searches of three databases (ERIC, Medline and Scopus) as well as Google Scholar for empirical studies on the barriers and facilitators for writing good quality items for medical school examinations.
resultsThe initial search yielded 1997 articles. After applying pre-determined criteria, 13 articles were selected for the scoping review. Included studies could be broadly categorised into studies that attempted to directly investigate the barriers and facilitators and studies that provided implicit evidence. Key findings were that faculty development and quality assurance were facilitators of good quality item writing while barriers at both an individual and institutional level include motivation, time constraints and scheduling.
conclusionsAlthough studies identified factors that may improve or negatively impact on the quality of items written by faculty and clinicians, there was limited research investigating the barriers and facilitators for individual item writers. Investigating these challenges could lead to more targeted and effective interventions to improve both the quality and quantity of assessment items.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.