Can We Share Multiple Choice Questions across Borders? Validation of the Dutch Knowledge Assessment in Family Medicine in Flanders

ISRN Education Pub Date : 2013-11-01 DOI:10.1155/2013/840627
Lynn Ryssaert, J. Wens, B. Schoenmakers
{"title":"Can We Share Multiple Choice Questions across Borders? Validation of the Dutch Knowledge Assessment in Family Medicine in Flanders","authors":"Lynn Ryssaert, J. Wens, B. Schoenmakers","doi":"10.1155/2013/840627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. One of the methods to test knowledge of Family Medicine trainees is a written exam composed of multiple choice questions. Creating high-quality multiple choice questions requires a lot of experience, knowledge, and time. This study explores the opportunity to run the Dutch knowledge assessment in Flanders as well, the use of this test for formative purposes. Methods. The study test was performed in a Flemish sample of postgraduate Family Medicine (FM) trainees and FM trainers. The Dutch test, adjusted to the Flemish context, was analyzed according to the classical test theory: difficulty factor and discriminating power of the items and reliability of the test. Results. 82 of the 154 items well divided the group into two equal parts of correct and incorrect responders. The distribution of the discrimination index, of the items with an acceptable difficulty factor, was [−0.012–0.530]. The item-test-correlation shows that 52 items do not fit, and 87 items need revision in varying degrees. The test reliability was 0.917. Conclusion. The test was highly reliable, but many MC questions appeared to be too easy and poorly discriminative. Therefore, we question the test validity and recommend reconsideration of the items based on difficulty before it is applied and used as a mandatory formative test.","PeriodicalId":202265,"journal":{"name":"ISRN Education","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/840627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. One of the methods to test knowledge of Family Medicine trainees is a written exam composed of multiple choice questions. Creating high-quality multiple choice questions requires a lot of experience, knowledge, and time. This study explores the opportunity to run the Dutch knowledge assessment in Flanders as well, the use of this test for formative purposes. Methods. The study test was performed in a Flemish sample of postgraduate Family Medicine (FM) trainees and FM trainers. The Dutch test, adjusted to the Flemish context, was analyzed according to the classical test theory: difficulty factor and discriminating power of the items and reliability of the test. Results. 82 of the 154 items well divided the group into two equal parts of correct and incorrect responders. The distribution of the discrimination index, of the items with an acceptable difficulty factor, was [−0.012–0.530]. The item-test-correlation shows that 52 items do not fit, and 87 items need revision in varying degrees. The test reliability was 0.917. Conclusion. The test was highly reliable, but many MC questions appeared to be too easy and poorly discriminative. Therefore, we question the test validity and recommend reconsideration of the items based on difficulty before it is applied and used as a mandatory formative test.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们可以跨国界共享多项选择题吗?法兰德斯荷兰家庭医学知识评估的验证
背景。测试家庭医学学员知识的方法之一是由多项选择题组成的笔试。制作高质量的选择题需要大量的经验、知识和时间。本研究探讨了在法兰德斯进行荷兰语知识评估的机会,并将此测试用于形成目的。方法。本研究以佛兰德地区家庭医学研究生(FM)培训生和FM培训师为样本进行。根据经典的测验理论:题目的难度因素、辨别力和测验的信度,对荷兰语测验进行了调整,以适应佛兰德语语境。结果:在154个问题中,有82个问题被很好地划分为正确回答和错误回答的两部分。具有可接受难度因子的题项的辨别指数分布为[- 0.012-0.530]。项目-测试-相关分析显示,52个项目不适合,87个项目需要不同程度的修改。检验信度为0.917。结论。该测试具有很高的可靠性,但许多MC问题似乎过于简单,缺乏辨别力。因此,我们质疑测试的有效性,并建议在将其应用并用作强制性形成性测试之前,根据难度重新考虑项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inquiry-Based Education for Students with Visual Impairment Comparison of Teacher Motivation for Mathematics and Special Educators in Middle Schools That Have and Have Not Achieved AYP Considering District and School Factors and Their Relationship to ACT Performance in North Carolina: An Examination of the ACT Pilot Results Caring for Students: What Teachers Have to Say Tool Use in Computer-Based Learning Environments: Adopting and Extending the Technology Acceptance Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1