Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36350605›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2023

Feedback, fairness, and validity: effects of disclosing and reusing multiple-choice questions in medical schools.

Stefan Appelhaus, Susanne Werner, Pascal Grosse, Juliane E Kämmer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefan AppelhausInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1325-6422
Susanne WernerAssessment Unit, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7710-6677
Pascal GrosseDean of Students Office and Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0114-0430
Juliane E KämmerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6042-8453
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisclosure of items used in multiple-choice-question (MCQ) exams may decrease student anxiety and improve transparency, feedback, and test-enhanced learning but potentially compromises the reliability and fairness of exams if items are eventually reused. Evidence regarding whether disclosure and reuse of test items change item psychometrics is scarce and inconclusive.

methodsWe retrospectively analysed difficulty and discrimination coefficients of 10,148 MCQ items used between fall 2017 and fall 2019 in a large European medical school in which items were disclosed from fall 2017 onwards. We categorised items as 'new'; 'reused, not disclosed'; or 'reused, disclosed'. For reused items, we calculated the difference from their first ever use, that is, when they were new. Differences between categories and terms were analysed with one-way analyses of variance and independent-samples

resultsThe proportion of reused, disclosed items grew from 0% to 48.4%; mean difficulty coefficients increased from 0.70 to 0.76; that is, items became easier,

conclusionsDisclosing test items provides the opportunity to enhance feedback and transparency in MCQ exams but potentially at the expense of decreased item reliability. Discrimination was positively affected. Our study may help weigh advantages and disadvantages of using previously disclosed items.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementSchools, MedicalFeedbackHumansReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesAssessmentdisclosurefeedbackformative assessmentitem reusemultiple-choice questionsprogress testing

Identifiers

PMID36350605
PMCPMC9662023
OpenAlexW4308616684

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.