Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39157702›Full record

ArticleJournal of CME2024

Comparison of Multiple-Choice Question Formats in a First Year Medical Physiology Course.

L Britt Wilson, Christine DiStefano, Huijuan Wang, Erika L Blanck

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of CME, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

L Britt WilsonDepartment of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.
Christine DiStefanoDepartment of Educational and Developmental Science, College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Huijuan WangDepartment of Educational and Developmental Science, College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Erika L BlanckDepartment of Cell Biology and Anatomy, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and question discrimination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that followed a standard format (SF) versus those that do not follow a SF, termed here as non-standard format (NSF). Medical physiology exam results of approximately 500 first-year medical students collected over a five-year period (2020-2024) were used. Classical test theory item analysis indices, e.g. discrimination (D), point-biserial correlation (r

Indexed as

first-year medical studentitem writingMultiple choicephysiologytest development

Identifiers

PMID39157702
PMCPMC11328596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.