SynthesisMedical education online2024
The pattern of reporting and presenting validity evidence of extended matching questions (EMQs) in health professions education: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Medical education online, 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.
- Evaluation of modified essay questions (MEQs) as an assessment tool in third-year medical students' modular summative assessment.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Extended matching Questions (EMQs), or R-type questions, are format of selected-response. The validity evidence for this format is crucial, but there have been reports of misunderstandings about validity. It is unclear what kinds of evidence should be presented and how to present them to support their educational impact. This review explores the pattern and quality of reporting the sources of validity evidence of EMQs in health professions education, encompassing content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequences. A systematic search in the electronic databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ERIC was conducted to extract studies that utilize EMQs. The framework for a unitary concept of validity was applied to extract data. A total of 218 titles were initially selected, the final number of titles was 19. The most reported pieces of evidence were the reliability coefficient, followed by the relationship to another variable. Additionally, the adopted definition of validity is mostly the old tripartite concept. This study found that reporting and presenting validity evidence appeared to be deficient. The available evidence can hardly provide a strong validity argument that supports the educational impact of EMQs. This review calls for more work on developing a tool to measure the reporting and presenting validity evidence.
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.