Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38846235›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

The Utility of Multiple-Choice Assessment in Current Medical Education: A Critical Review.

Priya Parekh, Vikesh Bahadoor

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Knowledge assessment tools in atopic dermatitis patient education: a scoping review.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Priya ParekhTrauma and Orthopaedics, Wirral University Teaching Hospital, Wirral, GBR.
Vikesh BahadoorTrauma and Orthopaedics, Wirral University Teaching Hospital, Wirral, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, healthcare education providers have boasted about a conscious shift towards increasing clinical competence via assessment tests that promote more active learning. Despite this, multiple-choice questions remain amongst the most prevalent forms of assessment. Various literature justifies the use of multiple-choice testing by its high levels of validity and reliability. Education providers also benefit from requiring fewer resources and costs in the development of questions and easier adaptivity of questions to compensate for neurodiversity. However, when testing these (and other) variables via a structured approach in terms of their utility, it is elucidated that these advantages are largely dependent on the quality of the questions that are written, the level of clinical competence that is to be attained by learners and the impact of negating confounding variables such as differential attainment. Attempts at improving the utility of multiple-choice question testing in modern healthcare curricula are discussed in this review, as well as the impact of these modifications on performance.

Indexed as

curriculum assessmentmedical educationmultiple-choice questionsneurodiversitytest reliabilityutilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID38846235
PMCPMC11154086

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.