ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2024
Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective analysis.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to compare the average number of mistakes made on multiple-choice (MCQ) and fill-in-the-blank (FIB) questions in anatomy lab exams.
methodsThe study was conducted retrospectively; every exam had both MCQs and FIBs. The study cohorts were divided into 3 tiers based on the number and percentage of mistakes in answering sheets: low (21-32, >40%), middle (11-20, 40%-20%), and high (1-9, <20%) tiers. The study used an independent 2-sample t test to compare the number of mistakes between MCQs and FIBs overall and per tier and a 1-way analysis of variance to compare the number of mistakes in both formats across the 3 tiers.
resultsThe results show that there was a significant difference in the number of mistakes between the 2 formats overall with more mistakes found on FIBs (p < .001). The number of mistakes made in the high and middle tiers had a statistical difference, being higher on MCQs (p < .001). There was no significant difference in the number of mistakes made in the low tier between formats (p > .05). Furthermore, the study found significant differences in the number of mistakes made on MCQs and FIBs across the 3 tiers, being highest in the low-tier group (p < .001).
conclusionThere were fewer mistakes on the MCQ than the FIB format in exams. It also suggests that, in the low tier answering sheets, both formats could be used to identify students at academic risk who need more attention.
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.