Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920696›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Determining the alignment of assessment items with curriculum goals through document analysis by addressing identified item flaws.

Humaira Fayyaz Khan, Shazia Qayyum, Huma Beenish, Rehan Ahmed Khan, Samina Iltaf, Lubna Rani Faysal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Humaira Fayyaz KhanDepartment of Physiology, Riphah International University, 274 Peshawar road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Shazia QayyumDepartment of Pathology, Riphah International University, 274 Peshawar road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. shazia.qayyum@riphah.edu.pk.
Huma BeenishDepartment of Anatomy, NUST School of Health Sciences, NUST Campus H-12 Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Rehan Ahmed KhanDepartment of Surgery, Riphah International University, 274 Peshawar road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Samina IltafDepartment of Pathology, Riphah International University, 274 Peshawar road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Lubna Rani FaysalDepartment of Dermatology, Riphah International University, 274 Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment shapes educational activities and curriculum mapping, influences learning outcomes, and motivates students. In medical education, aligning assessment items with curricular goals ensures that learning outcomes are accurately measured. Our study aimed to evaluate the alignment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with curriculum objectives, identify any flaws in these items, and propose enhancements to improve assessment quality. METHODOLOGY: A quantitative descriptive study was conducted at Islamic International Medical College, Riphah University, in 2023. Pre-hoc reports from mid-stake assessments across five academic years were analyzed, covering both preclinical and clinical years. A total of 2,400 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) were reviewed for the mid-stake exams against the institutional checklist in which flaws were categorized into three types: test wiseness, irrelevant difficulty, and miscellaneous flaws.

resultsThe analysis revealed a significant misalignment between assessment items and curriculum objectives. Of the 2,400 MCQs reviewed across all five years, 561 flaws were identified: 125 test wiseness flaws, 198 irrelevant difficulty flaws, and and 238 miscellaneous flaws. The latter category was recognized as "alignment flaws" which was not previously documented.The documentation and rectification of these flaws, which included issues such as misaligned learning objectives, incorrect assessment strategies, and disconnects between scenarios and lead-ins, led to their inclusion in the institutional checklist, facilitating ongoing improvements in assessment quality.

conclusionsOur study revealed significant gaps in the alignment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with curriculum objectives, emphasizing the need for a systematic approach to address these flaws. Document analysis identified misalignments between content objectives, cognitive processes, and assessment strategies, which compromise the quality of evaluations and can hinder the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. To address these issues, we propose integrating identified flaws into institutional guidelines and implementing an updated checklist for pre-hoc evaluation of assessment items, with a focus on curriculum alignment and cognitive levels.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateChecklistDocument AnalysisGoalsHumansAlignment flawsAssessment qualityDocument analysis

Identifiers

PMID39920696
PMCPMC11806761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.