ArticleBMC medical education2020
Motivations of assessment item writers in medical programs: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten tips to harnessing generative AI for high-quality MCQS in medical education assessment.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Effects of a long term faculty development program on improvement in quality of MCQs: an impact evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Faculty Perception of Scenario-Based MCQs, SAQs, and MEQs in Medical Education at an Apex Institute.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Nurturing Untapped Integration Expertise of MS4 Assessment Writers.Medical science educator · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe challenge of generating sufficient quality items for medical student examinations is a common experience for medical program coordinators. Faculty development strategies are commonly used, but there is little research on the factors influencing medical educators to engage in item writing. To assist with designing evidence-based strategies to improve engagement, we conducted an interview study informed by self-determination theory (SDT) to understand educators' motivations to write items.
methodsWe conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with educators in an established medical program. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and underwent open coding and thematic analysis.
resultsMajor themes included; responsibility for item writing and item writer motivations, barriers and enablers; perceptions of the level of content expertise required to write items; and differences in the writing process between clinicians and non-clinicians.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that flexible item writing training, strengthening of peer review processes and institutional improvements such as improved communication of expectations, allocation of time for item writing and pairing new writers with experienced writers for mentorship could enhance writer engagement.
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.