ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Exploring the experiences of content experts with item vetting during item bank development.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Meets Item Analysis (AI meets IA): A Study of Chatbot Training and Performance in detecting and correcting MCQ Flaws.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Effective use of Item Analysis to improve the Reliability and Validity of Undergraduate Medical Examinations: Evaluating the same exam over many years: a different approach.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore content experts' experiences with item vetting during item bank development at a public sector medical university of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Methods: An exploratory study was carried out from December 2022 to February 2023 at a public sector medical college of Rawalpindi. A purposive sampling technique was employed to collect data from all content experts of the study institute who participated in item vetting activity during pre-exam moderation in the university. A pilot-tested semi-structured interview guide was utilized, interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed. Participants' anonymity was ensured. Various quality assurance strategies were employed to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. Thematic analysis was performed on the transcribed data and themes were finalized by achieving consensus among all authors. Results: Six themes overarching the fourteen subthemes emerged from the data. Participants expressed a profound sense of satisfaction and valued their experience in refining expertise in constructing multiple-choice questions (MCQs). It was widely acknowledged that such activities not only contribute to the enhancement of item development skills but also improve quality of items. Conclusions: The consistent implementation of item vetting routines, in conjunction with diligent adherence to item writing protocols, contributes to quality assurance measures in assessment. Item bank development for fair and transparent assessment ensures production of competent healthcare professionals filtering incompetent ones hence improving health care services in the community.
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.