Patients don't present with five choices: An alternative to multiple- choice tests in assessing physicians' competence

Academic Medicine

Volumn 74, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 539-546

  Veloski, J Jon ^a   Rabinowitz, Howard K ^a   Robeson, Mary R ^a   Young, Paul R ^b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Ctr Res Med Educ and Hlth Care ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPETENCE; EXAMINATION; FAMILY MEDICINE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0033005049     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199905000-00022     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Osler W. Examinations, examiners, and examinees. Lancet. 1913;2:1047-50.
2. Blumer G. Desirability of changing the type of written examinations. JAMA. 1919;72:1131-3.
3. Ruch GM. The objective or New-Type Examination: An Introduction to Educational Measurement. New York: Scott, Foreman and Company; 1929.
4. Meyer G. An experimental study of the old and new types of examination: I. The effect of the examination set on memory. J Educ Psychol. 1934;25:641-61.
5. Watson CJ. Some activities and impacts of the American Board of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1948;138:257-60.
6. Cowles JT, Hubbard JP. A comparative study of essay and objective examinations for medical students. J Med Educ. 1952;27(pt 2):14-7.
7. Hubbard JP. Measuring Medical Education: The Tests and Experience of the National Board of Medical Examiners. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger; 1978.
8. Albanese M, Kent T, Whitney D. Cluing in multiple-choice test items with combinations of correct responses. J Med Educ. 1979; 54:948-50.
9. Anbar M, Loonsk JW. Computer emulated oral exams: rationale and implementation of cue-free interactive computerized tests. Med Teach. 1988;10:175-80.
10. Anbar M. Comparing assessments of student's knowledge by computerized open-ended and multiple-choice tests. Acad Med. 1991;66: 420-2.
11. Harasym P, Norris D, Lorscheider F. Evaluating student multiple-choice responses; effects of coded and free formats. Eval Health Prof. 1980;3:63-84.
12. McCarthy WH. An assessment of the influence of cueing items in objective examinations. J Med Educ. 1966;41:263-6.
13. Newble DI, Baxter A, Elmslie RG. A comparison of multiple choice tests and free-response tests in examinations of clinical competence. Med Educ. 1979;13:263-8.
14. Muller S (chair). Physicians for the twenty-first century: report of the project panel on the general professional education of the physician and college preparation for medicine. J Med Educ. 1984;59(November):part 2.
15. Ramsey PG, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP, Wenrich MD. Predictive validity of certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:719-26.
16. Veloski J, Hojat M, Gonnella J. A validity study of Part III of the National Board Examination. Eval Health Prof. 1990;13:227-40.
17. Birenbaum M, Tatsuoka KX. Open-ended versus multiple-choice response formats - it does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Appl Psychol Meas. 1987;11:385-95.
18. Bridgeman B. A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. J Educ Meas. 1992;29:253-71.
19. Feletti GI. Reliability and validity studies on modified essay questions. J Med Educ. 1980; 55:933-41.
20. Friedman MA, Hopwood LE, Moulder JE, Cox JD. The potential use of the discouraging random guessing (DRG) approach in multiple-choice exams in medical education. Med Teach. 1987;9:333-41.
21. Gross LJ. The standard 2-dimensional PMP: a new technique for assessing clinical judgment. Health Policy. 1985;4:247-64.
22. Harden RM, Stevenson M, Downie WW, Wilson GM. Assessment of clinical competence using objective structured examination. BMJ. 1975;1:447-51.
23. Rabinowitz HK. A comparison of the modified essay question and multiple choice question formats: their relationships to clinical performance. Fam Med. 1989;21:364-7.
24. Page G, Bordage G. The Medical Council of Canada's key features project: a more valid written examination of clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med. 1995;70:104-10.
25. Page G, Bordage G, Allen T Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med. 1995;70:194-201.
26. Case S, Swanson DB. Extended matching items: a practical alternative to free-response questions. Teach Learn Med. 1993;5:107-15.
27. Anderson PS. The MDT Innovation: Machine-Scoring of Fill-in-the-blank Tests. Normal, IL: MULTI-DIGIT Technologies Corporation, 1987.
28. Langdon LO. An open-ended examination format to assess interpretive skills. In: Lloyd JS, Langsley DG (eds.) Evaluating the Skills of Medical Specialists. Chicago, IL: American Board of Medical Specialties, 1983:297-306.
29. Martinez ME, Bennett RE. A review of automatically scorable constructed-response item types for large-scale assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 1992;5:151-69.
30. Veloski J, Rabinowitz HK, Robeson MR. A solution to the cueing effects of multiple choice questions: the UnQ format. Med Educ. 1993;27:371-5.
31. Thorndike RL. Applied psychometrics. Boston, MA: Houghton-Miflin, 1982.
32. Wainer H, Braun HI (eds). Test Validity. Princeton, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
33. Leigh T, Johnson TP, Pisacano NJ. Predictive validity of the American Board of Family Practice in-training examination. Acad Med. 1990;65:454-7.
34. Young PR. Board news. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1990;3:310.
35. Sumner W, Truszcynski M, Marek VW. A formal model of family medicine. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1996;9:41-52.
36. Frederiksen N. The real test bias - influences of testing on teaching and learning. Am Psychol. 1984;39:193-202.
37. Fenderson BA, Damjanov I, Robeson MR, Veloski JJ, Rubin E. The virtues of extended matching and uncued tests as alternatives to multiple choice questions. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:526-32.