Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34457973›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2021

Examining Bloom's Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students' Approach to Questions.

J K Stringer, Sally A Santen, Eun Lee, Meagan Rawls, Jean Bailey, Alicia Richards, Robert A Perera, Diane Biskobing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

J K StringerOffice of Assessment, Evaluation, and Scholarship, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Sally A SantenOffice of Assessment, Evaluation, and Scholarship, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Eun LeeDepartment of Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Meagan RawlsOffice of Assessment, Evaluation, and Scholarship, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Jean BaileyOffice of Faculty Development, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Alicia RichardsDepartment of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Robert A PereraDepartment of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.
Diane BiskobingDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6178-4783

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AssessmentBloom's taxonomyClinical reasoningMedical studentsMultiple choice questions

Identifiers

PMID34457973
PMCPMC8368900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.