PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
In recent years, healthcare education providers have boasted about a conscious shift towards increasing clinical competence via assessment tests that promote more active learning. Despite this, multiple-choice questions remain amongst the most prevalent forms of assessment. Various literature justifies the use of multiple-choice testing by its high levels of validity and reliability. Education providers also benefit from requiring fewer resources and costs in the development of questions and easier adaptivity of questions to compensate for neurodiversity. However, when testing these (and other) variables via a structured approach in terms of their utility, it is elucidated that these advantages are largely dependent on the quality of the questions that are written, the level of clinical competence that is to be attained by learners and the impact of negating confounding variables such as differential attainment. Attempts at improving the utility of multiple-choice question testing in modern healthcare curricula are discussed in this review, as well as the impact of these modifications on performance.
摘要：
近年来,医疗保健教育提供者吹嘘通过促进更积极学习的评估测试，有意识地转向提高临床能力。尽管如此,多项选择题仍然是最普遍的评估形式之一。各种文献通过其高度的有效性和可靠性来证明使用多项选择测试是合理的。教育提供者还受益于在开发问题时需要更少的资源和成本，以及更容易适应问题以补偿神经多样性。然而,当通过结构化方法测试这些(和其他)变量的效用时，阐明了这些优势在很大程度上取决于所写问题的质量，学习者要达到的临床能力水平，以及否定混杂变量（如不同的成就）的影响。本文讨论了在现代医疗保健课程中提高多项选择题测试实用性的尝试，以及这些修改对性能的影响。
