ArticleJMIR medical education2023
Use of Multiple-Select Multiple-Choice Items in a Dental Undergraduate Curriculum: Retrospective Study Involving the Application of Different Scoring Methods.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Model Framework for Multiple Response Items.Psychometrika · 2026Article
- Use of Multiple-Choice Items in Summative Examinations: Questionnaire Survey Among German Undergraduate Dental Training Programs.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Scoring Single-Response Multiple-Choice Items: Scoping Review and Comparison of Different Scoring Methods.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScoring and awarding credit are more complex for multiple-select items than for single-choice items. Forty-one different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to 2 multiple-select multiple-choice item types (Pick-N and Multiple-True-False [MTF]) from existing examination data.
objectiveThis study aimed to calculate and compare the mean scores for both item types by applying different scoring methods, and to investigate the effect of item quality on mean raw scores and the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (≥0.6).
methodsItems and responses from examinees (ie, marking events) were retrieved from previous examinations. Different scoring methods were retrospectively applied to the existing examination data to calculate corresponding examination scores. In addition, item quality was assessed using a validated checklist. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and multiple logistic regression analysis (P<.05).
resultsWe analyzed 1931 marking events of 48 Pick-N items and 828 marking events of 18 MTF items. For both item types, scoring results widely differed between scoring methods (minimum: 0.02, maximum: 0.98; P<.001). Both the use of an inappropriate item type (34 items) and the presence of cues (30 items) impacted the scoring results. Inappropriately used Pick-N items resulted in lower mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.93; P<.001), while inappropriately used MTF items resulted in higher mean raw scores (0.88 vs 0.85; P=.001). Mean raw scores were higher for MTF items with cues than for those without cues (0.91 vs 0.8; P<.001), while mean raw scores for Pick-N items with and without cues did not differ (0.89 vs 0.90; P=.09). Item quality also impacted the likelihood of resulting scores at or above the pass level (odds ratio ≤6.977).
conclusionsEducators should pay attention when using multiple-select multiple-choice items and select the most appropriate item type. Different item types, different scoring methods, and presence of cues are likely to impact examinees' scores and overall examination results.
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.