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. |