ArticleMedical science educator2021
Examining Bloom's Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students' Approach to Questions.
Article in Medical science educator, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of flipped classroom-based anatomy teaching in medical students.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Cognitive alignment and assessment validity in a high-stakes dental specialty examination: a Bloom's taxonomy-based analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Bridging language and data: Transforming agricultural curricula for data analytics through linguistic insights.PloS one · 2026Article
- Accuracy, Reliability, and Bloom's Taxonomy Performance of Seven Large Language Models on Microbiology Questions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluating cognitive depth of AI-generated multiple-choice questions with Bloom's Taxonomy.PloS one · 2026Article
- Question format is the best predictor of item discrimination: a multivariable analysis.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Comparison of chatbots' accuracy in endodontics questions in dentistry specialization exam in Türkiye: ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Advanced, Copilot, and Claude.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Application of virtual simulations in the practical teaching of clinical microbiology laboratory courses.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of Student Cognition When Answering Text-Only or Image-Based Histology Multiple-Choice Questions.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- The performance of OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in virology multiple-choice questions: a comparative analysis of English and Arabic responses.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Dynamic answer-dependent multiple-choice questions and holistic assessment analysis in high-enrollment courses.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2024Article
- Article
- Medical knowledge of ChatGPT in public health, infectious diseases, COVID-19 pandemic, and vaccines: multiple choice questions examination based performance.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Automated Item Generation: impact of item variants on performance and standard setting.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Article
- ChatGPT Knowledge Evaluation in Basic and Clinical Medical Sciences: Multiple Choice Question Examination-Based Performance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Legionnaires' Disease in Occupational Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study from Northeastern Italy (2019).Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Flipped anatomy classroom integrating multimodal digital resources shows positive influence upon students' experience and learning performance.Anatomical sciences education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order according to Bloom's taxonomy, and students will perceive questions to be the same taxonomical level as intended. This study seeks to understand the students' approach to questions by analyzing differences in students' perception of the Bloom's level of MCQs in relation to their knowledge and confidence.
methodsA total of 137 students responded to practice endocrine MCQs. Participants indicated the answer to the question, their interpretation of it as higher or lower order, and the degree of confidence in their response to the question.
resultsAlthough there was no significant association between students' average performance on the content and their question classification (higher or lower), individual students who were less confident in their answer were more than five times as likely (OR = 5.49) to identify a question as higher order than their more confident peers. Students who responded incorrectly to the MCQ were 4 times as likely to identify a question as higher order than their peers who responded correctly.
conclusionsThe results suggest that higher performing, more confident students rely on identifying patterns (even if the question was intended to be higher order). In contrast, less confident students engage in higher-order, analytic thinking even if the question is intended to be lower order. Better understanding of the processes through which students interpret MCQs will help us to better understand the development of clinical reasoning skills.
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.