ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Comparison of Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) and Number Right Scoring (NRS) in Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessments: A Prospective Cohort Study of Second-Year Medical Students.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. 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.
- Association of the Transition to Online Examination with Grading Patterns in Medical Basic Sciences: A Single-Center Retrospective Study Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with number right scoring (NRS) are now the most preferred assessment method in medical education, which requires program holders to ensure their fairness for profound decision-making and policy arrangements. Including certainty-based marking (CBM) in MCQ exams is suggested to help better distinguish students and thus increase the validity of assessments. This study aims to integrate CBM into MCQ assessments using a relatively new scoring matrix to assess pass/fail rates and exam scores. Methods: Students in their second year of medical school participated in ten different CBM-MCQ exams. Questions were scored twice: first, traditionally using the NRS, and second, using the CBM (based on correctness and a self-report certainty scale), yielding two different final scores for each student. Exam scores and pass/fail rates were compared using paired t-tests and McNemar tests, respectively. Results: A total of 935 students in 10 different exams were included in the study. CBM scores were significantly lower than NRS scores (0.82 points; P<0.001). There was a significant shift in the pass/fail classifications (P<0.001). Overall, 34 out of 141 NRS failures (24.1%) passed under CBM, while 85 (10.7%) of the 794 students who passed under NRS failed under CBM. This significant shift was also reported in 5 of 10 exams (P<0.05). Additionally, there was a trend towards worsening scores in CBM compared to NRS. Students with "A" grades decreased from 8.4% to 4.7% while students with "D" grades increased from 15.1% to 20.5%. Conclusion: CBM yields significantly different scores compared to NRS, as evidenced by distinct pass/fail rates, suggesting the potential for a better assessment tool. Further studies with different types of assessments are needed to validate this method in terms of reducing cheating and guesswork. However, replacing CBM with conventional scoring methods requires further evidence and consideration.
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.