Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42438546›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2026

Testing that Makes You Think: Development of a Basic Science Test to Promote Future Clinical Learning.

Sally Binks, Ryan Brydges, Nicole Woods, Jaimie Coleman, Vyshnave Jeyabalan, Kulamakan Kulasegaram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sally BinksHealth Professions Education Research, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, 1ES-565, Toronto, M5G 2C4 ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8986-2747
Ryan BrydgesTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, 1ES-565, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5203-7049
Nicole WoodsResearch Institute, The Institute for Education Research (TIER), 200 Elizabeth Street, 1ES-565, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2976-1108
Jaimie ColemanTemerty Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Room 862, Toronto, ON Canada.
Vyshnave JeyabalanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6223-0387
Kulamakan KulasegaramTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, 1ES-565, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6644-0098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Testing prior knowledge has been found to enhance learning new, related information. In this paper, we report on the development of a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test of basic science knowledge designed to elicit a particular kind of cognitive processing-distinctive processing-that, we argue, may be beneficial to future learning and clinical reasoning. Distinctive processing entails noticing both similarities and differences among concepts or entities. The recruitment and distinctive processing of prior basic science knowledge may optimally prepare learners to understand, remember and apply new, related clinical information. Methods: We developed two versions of a 19-item basic science MCQ. Both versions of the test had identical stems and correct response options; one version had very similar, plausible or "competitive" incorrect response options while the other version had less similar or "non-competitive" incorrect response options. We hypothesized that the "competitive" test version would elicit more distinctive processing than the "non-competitive" version. We conducted a concurrent verbal protocol to assess the response processes elicited by the two different test versions. Results: We found that the MCQ items designed with competitive or plausible incorrect answer options elicited more distinctive processing than MCQ items with less competitive or less plausible incorrect response options. Discussion: We showed that tests can be designed to promote cognitive processes that may be beneficial for future learning and that concurrent verbal protocols can be used to collect response process validity evidence for formative tests.

Indexed as

Distinctive ProcessingFormative TestingItem DevelopmentMedical EducationResponse Process Analysis

Identifiers

PMID42438546
PMCPMC13356146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.