ArticleBMC medical education2025
Determining the alignment of assessment items with curriculum goals through document analysis by addressing identified item flaws.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of low-dose, high-frequency advanced life support training versus annual full-day training on simulation-based resuscitation performance: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Article
- Improving Medical Assessment Validity with Generative AI: Lessons from Human-AI Interaction in Bloom's Taxonomy Classification.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Article
- Psychometric item/question analysis of multiple-choice questions in fixed prosthodontics exam.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- 10 tips for clinical educators in designing and delivering learning experiences to improve clinical reasoning for medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.