ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2024
Comparison between MCQ, Extended matching questions (EMQ) and Script concordance test (SCT) for assessment among first-year medical students - A pilot study.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-based teaching versus traditional small group teaching for first-year medical students among high and low scorers in respiratory physiology, India: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Trial
- Item analysis and performance of EMQ, MCQ, and SAQ in dental education and students' perception of extended-matching questions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- FonoTCS: validation of a tool for assessing clinical reasoning in Speech-Language pathology.CoDAS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-best response types of MCQs are commonly used tools in medical assessment. However, these are not particularly apt for the assessment of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) among students. Assessment of HOTS and clinical reasoning skills requires unexplored tools like extended matching questions (EMQs) and SCTs. The aim is to assess HOTS and clinical reasoning skills during formative assessment among medical students post a simulation-based education (SBE) using EMQ and SCT on the topic of shock and collect student perceptions regarding new assessment tools. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The research is an observational descriptive study. Fifty-two first-year medical students were asked to take a formative assessment consisting of 20 MCQs, 6 EMQs, and 2 SCT post a SBE during July 2022 on the topic of shock. MCQs were categorized into themes of aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of shock. These categorized MCQs were compared and analyzed with EMQs and SCTs prepared on the same themes. The data analysis by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the difference in per cent mean scores of MCQ with EMQ and MCQ with SCT.
resultsThe overall mean scores and also under the theme of aetiology and management, the student's score in MCQ were higher than EMQ and SCT and the difference was statistically significant with the
conclusionsStudents scored better in familiar assessment tools like MCQ, but majority of the students were of the opinion that EMQ tested the delivered content better and SCT tested the clinical application better.
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.