ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
The equation for medical multiple-choice question testing time estimation.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the length and time related concepts for scenario-based multiple-choice questions through perspectives of medical education experts: a mixed-method approach.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and importance: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) offer a suitable means to assess the cognitive domain of learners with a high degree of objectivity. The study's objective is to formulate an equation for determining the ideal timing for MCQ examinations, thereby inspiring the development of a model to estimate the duration of these examinations. Methods: The authors generated a specific computer program that integrated with the operating system of the examination. Technical-specific features included the ability to calculate the speed of students taking examinations with images or videos in the questions or options. This bespoke computer program was designed specifically for assessing individual students' MCQ test-taking pace and generating a proctor report in a computer-readable format. Subsequently, data derived from this program underwent regression analysis to determine the speed at which students completed MCQ examinations. Outcomes: The data were collected from a total of 1035 examinees, all of whom were non-native English speakers. The average reading rate was 62.38±20.4 words/min. It was found that the rate decreased significantly in difficult (50.65±6.9 words/min) items compared to easy (82.29±21.3 words/min) and intermediate (60.56±19.1 words/min) items ( Conclusion: It is not advisable to base the decision solely on reading time or time allocation. Examination administrators are advised to proactively plan ahead, with particular emphasis on establishing a well-defined taxonomy, as it constitutes a fundamental cornerstone in the utilization of the estimation equation.
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.