Skip to main content

Table 2 Data Extraction: Observational Studies

From: Barriers and facilitators to writing quality items for medical school assessments – a scoping review

Authors Setting Population Study Design Summary Reference
Case SM, Holtzman K, Ripkey DR USA, 1997 Medical faculty Case study (uncontrolled trial) Describes three item models and the item quality and cost outcome for each model. Case SM, Holtzman K, Ripkey DR. Developing an item pool for CBT: a practical comparison of three models of item writing. Acad Med. 2001;76 Suppl 10:111–3.
Downing SM USA, 2002 Year 1 basic science exam, single group Cross-sectional Suggests that item quality can be poor even with the use of faculty development and item writing guidelines. Downing SM. Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference? Acad Med. 2002;77 Suppl 10:103–4.
Holsgrove G, Elzubeir M UK, 1996 Active MBBS examiners Cross-sectional Imprecise terms in MCQ items are routine and their interpretation by examiners is highly variable. Holsgrove G, Elzubeir M. Imprecise terms in UK medical multiple-choice questions: what examiners think they mean. Med Educ. 1998;32(4):343–50.
Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH USA, 1998 Three medical schools Cross-sectional The overall quality of in-house examination items was low. Mean quality assessment scores were higher for items written by NBME-trained writers than for writers without formal training. Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med. 2002;77(2):156–61.
Pinjani S, Umer M, Sadaf S Pakistan, 2008 Aga Khan University medical faculty Case study Immediate need for new questions due to hacking of the question database led to measures to rapidly generate new items. Pinjani S, Umer M, Sadaf S. Faculty engagement in developing an internship entry test. Med Educ. 2015;49(5):540–1.