Comparison between Long-Menu and Open-Ended Questions in computerized medical assessments. A randomized controlled trial

BMC Medical Education

Volumn 6, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Rotthoff, Thomas ^a   Baehring, Thomas ^a   Dicken, Hans Dieter ^b   Fahron, Urte ^a   Richter, Bernd ^a   Fischer, Martin R ^c   Scherbaum, Werner A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL DÜSSELDORF   (Germany)

^b HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSE TIME; ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; GERMANY; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TIME;

ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; TIME; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33750380940     PISSN: 14726920     EISSN: 14726920     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-6-50     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. The Medical School Objectives Writing Group: Learning Objectives for Medical Student Education - Guidelines for Medical Schools: Report I of the Medical School Objectives Project. Acad Med 1999, 74:13-18.
2. Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT: Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ 2005, 39:309-317.
3. Page G, Bordage G: The medical council of Canada's key feature project: a more valid written examination of clinical decision making skills;. Acad Med 1995, 70:104-110.
4. Page G, Bordage G, Allen T: Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision making skills. Acad Med 1995, 70:194-201.
5. Veloski JJ, Rabinowith HK, Robeson MR: A solution to the cueing effects of multiple choice questions: The UN-Q format. Med Educ 1993, 27:371-5.
6. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Stoffers HEJH, Peperkamp AGW: Computerized long-menu questions as an alternative to open-ended questions in computerized assessment. Med Educ 1996, 30:50-55.
7. Fischer MR, Kopp V, Holzer M, Ruderich F, Jünger J: A modified electronic key feature examination for undergraduate medical students: validation threats and opportunities. Medical Teacher 2005, 27:450-55.
8. [http://www.casus.net]. accessed 08/13/2006
9. Simonsohn AB, Fischer MR: Evaluation of a case-based computerized learning program (CASUS) for medical students during their clinical years. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2004, 129:552-6.
10. Hatala R, Norman G: Adapting the key features examination for a clinical clerkship. Med Educ 2002, 36:160-165.
11. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM: Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strength and weaknesses? Med Educ 2004, 38:974-979.
12. Schuwirth LWT, Verheggen MM, van der Vleuten CPM, Boshuizen HPA, Dinant GJ: Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do? Med Educ 2001, 35:348-56.
13. Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C: Merging views on assessment. Med Educ 2004, 38:1208-1211.