-
Comparison of the level of cognitive processing between case-based items and non-case-based items on the Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine in the Netherlands
-
Dario Cecilio-Fernandes
 , Wouter Kerdijk, Andreas Johannes Bremers, Wytze Aalders, René Anton Tio
-
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2018;15:28. Published online December 12, 2018
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.28
-
-
19,684
View
-
208
Download
-
10
Web of Science
-
10
Crossref
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Purpose
It is assumed that case-based questions require higher-order cognitive processing, whereas questions that are not case-based require lower-order cognitive processing. In this study, we investigated to what extent case-based and non-case-based questions followed this assumption based on Bloom’s taxonomy.
Methods
In this article, 4,800 questions from the Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine were classified based on whether they were case-based and on the level of Bloom’s taxonomy that they involved. Lower-order questions require students to remember or/and have a basic understanding of knowledge. Higher-order questions require students to apply, analyze, or/and evaluate. The phi coefficient was calculated to investigate the relationship between whether questions were case-based and the required level of cognitive processing.
Results
Our results demonstrated that 98.1% of case-based questions required higher-level cognitive processing. Of the non-case-based questions, 33.7% required higher-level cognitive processing. The phi coefficient demonstrated a significant, but moderate correlation between the presence of a patient case in a question and its required level of cognitive processing (phi coefficient= 0.55, P< 0.001).
Conclusion
Medical instructors should be aware of the association between item format (case-based versus non-case-based) and the cognitive processes they elicit in order to meet the desired balance in a test, taking the learning objectives and the test difficulty into account.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Progress is impossible without change: implementing automatic item generation in medical knowledge progress testing
Filipe Manuel Vidal Falcão, Daniela S.M. Pereira, José Miguel Pêgo, Patrício Costa
Education and Information Technologies.2024; 29(4): 4505. CrossRef - Reliability across content areas in progress tests assessing medical knowledge: a Brazilian cross-sectional study with implications for medical education assessments
Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho, Miriam Hashimoto, Alba Regina de Abreu Lima, Leandro Arthur Diehl, Neide Tomimura Costa, Patrícia Moretti Rehder, Samira Yarak, Maria Cristina de Andrade, Maria de Lourdes Marmorato Botta Hafner, Zilda Maria Tosta Ribeiro, Júli
Sao Paulo Medical Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Development of qualified items for nursing education assessment: The progress testing experience
Bruna Moreno Dias, Lúcia Marta Giunta da Silva, Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho, Valdes Roberto Bollela, Carmen Silvia Gabriel
Nurse Education in Practice.2024; 81: 104199. CrossRef - Identifying the response process validity of clinical vignette-type multiple choice questions: An eye-tracking study
Francisco Carlos Specian Junior, Thiago Martins Santos, John Sandars, Eliana Martorano Amaral, Dario Cecilio-Fernandes
Medical Teacher.2023; 45(8): 845. CrossRef - Relationship between medical programme progress test performance and surgical clinical attachment timing and performance
Andy Wearn, Vanshay Bindra, Bradley Patten, Benjamin P. T. Loveday
Medical Teacher.2023; 45(8): 877. CrossRef - Analysis of Orthopaedic In-Training Examination Trauma Questions: 2017 to 2021
Lilah Fones, Daryl C. Osbahr, Daniel E. Davis, Andrew M. Star, Atif K. Ahmed, Arjun Saxena
JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Use of Sociodemographic Information in Clinical Vignettes of Multiple-Choice Questions for Preclinical Medical Students
Kelly Carey-Ewend, Amir Feinberg, Alexis Flen, Clark Williamson, Carmen Gutierrez, Samuel Cykert, Gary L. Beck Dallaghan, Kurt O. Gilliland
Medical Science Educator.2023; 33(3): 659. CrossRef - What faculty write versus what students see? Perspectives on multiple-choice questions using Bloom’s taxonomy
Seetha U. Monrad, Nikki L. Bibler Zaidi, Karri L. Grob, Joshua B. Kurtz, Andrew W. Tai, Michael Hortsch, Larry D. Gruppen, Sally A. Santen
Medical Teacher.2021; 43(5): 575. CrossRef - Aménagement du concours de première année commune aux études de santé (PACES) : entre justice sociale et éthique confraternelle en devenir ?
R. Pougnet, L. Pougnet
Éthique & Santé.2020; 17(4): 250. CrossRef - Knowledge of dental faculty in gulf cooperation council states of multiple-choice questions’ item writing flaws
Mawlood Kowash, Hazza Alhobeira, Iyad Hussein, Manal Al Halabi, Saif Khan
Medical Education Online.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
|
KHPLEI
