The impact of two multiple-choice question formats on the problem-solving strategies used by novices and experts

dc.creator	Mandin Henry
dc.creator	Harasym Peter
dc.creator	Coderre Sylvain P
dc.creator	Fick Gordon
dc.date	2004-11-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-20T22:29:15Z
dc.date.available	2015-07-20T22:29:15Z
dc.identifier	10.1186/1472-6920-4-23
dc.identifier	1472-6920
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/aef248aaab424967b47d2ca44c90b4bc
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/22122
dc.description	<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pencil-and-paper examination formats, and specifically the standard, five-option multiple-choice question, have often been questioned as a means for assessing higher-order clinical reasoning or problem solving. This study firstly investigated whether two paper formats with differing number of alternatives (standard five-option and extended-matching questions) can test problem-solving abilities. Secondly, the impact of the alternatives number on psychometrics and problem-solving strategies was examined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Think-aloud protocols were collected to determine the problem-solving strategy used by experts and non-experts in answering Gastroenterology questions, across the two pencil-and-paper formats.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The two formats demonstrated equal ability in testing problem-solving abilities, while the number of alternatives did not significantly impact psychometrics or problem-solving strategies utilized.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These results support the notion that well-constructed multiple-choice questions can in fact test higher order clinical reasoning. Furthermore, it can be concluded that in testing clinical reasoning, the question stem, or content, remains more important than the number of alternatives.</p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	BioMed Central
dc.relation	http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/4/23
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6920
dc.rights	CC BY
dc.source	BMC Medical Education, Vol 4, Iss 1, p 23 (2004)
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	The impact of two multiple-choice question formats on the problem-solving strategies used by novices and experts
dc.type	article