Trial reportPloS one2023
Use of very short answer questions compared to multiple choice questions in undergraduate medical students: An external validation study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Very short answer questions vs. multiple choice questions in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of cognitive workload between very short answer questions and multiple-choice questions: an eye-tracking experiment.Medical education online · 2026Trial
- The battle of question formats: a comparative study of retrieval practice using very short answer questions and multiple choice questions.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Comparative analysis of short answer questions and multiple-choice questions in formative assessment of first-year medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Prescribing competence: The pros and cons of different methods for assessment.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Item analysis and performance of EMQ, MCQ, and SAQ in dental education and students' perception of extended-matching questions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Visualizing cognitive processes in medical education: Forward and backward reasoning in a digital family medicine assessment.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Question format is the best predictor of item discrimination: a multivariable analysis.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Development of Immediate Self-Feedback Very Short Answer Questions: Implementing Testlet Response Theory in Formative Examinations Across Multiple Occasions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Comparing Scoring Consistency of Large Language Models with Faculty for Formative Assessments in Medical Education.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Development and validation of immediate self-feedback very short answer questions for medical students: practical implementation of generalizability theory to estimate reliability in formative examination designs.BMC medical education · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open-ended questions requiring a very short answer, may circumvent these limitations. Although VSAQ use in medical assessment increases, almost all research on reliability and validity of VSAQs in medical education has been performed by a single research group with extensive experience in the development of VSAQs. Therefore, we aimed to validate previous findings about VSAQ reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students and teachers with limited experience in VSAQs development. To validate the results presented in previous studies, we partially replicated a previous study and extended results on student experiences. Dutch undergraduate medical students (n = 375) were randomized to VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in a formative exam in two courses, to determine reliability, discrimination, and cueing. Acceptability for teachers (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Reliability (Cronbach's α) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach's α was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (average Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ±2 minutes on average. Positive cueing occurred more in MCQs than in VSAQs (20% vs. 4% and 20.8% vs. 8.3% of questions per person in both courses). This study validates the positive results regarding VSAQs reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VSAQ use is reliable among teachers with limited experience in writing and marking VSAQs. The short learning curve for teachers, favourable marking time and applicability regardless of the topic suggest that VSAQs might also be valuable beyond medical assessment.
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.