Assessing the Difficulty and Long-Term Retention of Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Through Multiple-Choice Questions: A Longitudinal Study.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S478193
Neil G Haycocks, Jessica Hernandez-Moreno, Johan C Bester, Robert Hernandez, Rosalie Kalili, Daman Samrao, Edward Simanton, Thomas A Vida
{"title":"Assessing the Difficulty and Long-Term Retention of Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Through Multiple-Choice Questions: A Longitudinal Study.","authors":"Neil G Haycocks, Jessica Hernandez-Moreno, Johan C Bester, Robert Hernandez, Rosalie Kalili, Daman Samrao, Edward Simanton, Thomas A Vida","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S478193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the mainstay in examinations for medical education, physician licensing, and board certification. Traditionally, MCQs tend to test rote recall of memorized facts. Their utility in assessing higher cognitive functions has been more problematic to determine. This work evaluates and compares the difficulty and long-term retention of factual versus conceptual knowledge using multiple-choice questions in a longitudinal study.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We classified a series of MCQs into two groups to test recall/verbatim and conceptual/inferential thinking, respectively. We used the MCQs to test a two-part hypothesis: 1) scores for recall/verbatim questions would be significantly higher than for concept/inference questions, and 2) memory loss over time would be more significant for factual knowledge than conceptual understanding compared with a loss in the ability to reason about concepts critically. We first used the MCQs with pre-clinical medical students on a summative exam in 2020, which served as a retrospective benchmark of their performance characteristics. After two years, the same questions were re-administered to volunteers from the same cohort of students in 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Retrospective analysis revealed that recall/verbatim questions were answered correctly more frequently (82.0% vs 60.9%, P = 0.002). Performance on concept/inference questions showed a significant decline, but a larger decline was observed for recall/verbatim questions after two years. Performance on concept/inference questions showed a slight decline across quartiles, while two years later, recall/verbatim questions experienced substantial performance loss. Subgroup analysis indicated convergence in performance on both question types, suggesting that the clinical relevance of the MCQ content may have influenced a regression toward a baseline mean.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest conceptual/inferential thinking is more complex than rote memorization. However, the knowledge acquired is more durable in a longitudinal fashion, especially if it is reinforced in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"15 ","pages":"1217-1228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S478193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are the mainstay in examinations for medical education, physician licensing, and board certification. Traditionally, MCQs tend to test rote recall of memorized facts. Their utility in assessing higher cognitive functions has been more problematic to determine. This work evaluates and compares the difficulty and long-term retention of factual versus conceptual knowledge using multiple-choice questions in a longitudinal study.

Patients and methods: We classified a series of MCQs into two groups to test recall/verbatim and conceptual/inferential thinking, respectively. We used the MCQs to test a two-part hypothesis: 1) scores for recall/verbatim questions would be significantly higher than for concept/inference questions, and 2) memory loss over time would be more significant for factual knowledge than conceptual understanding compared with a loss in the ability to reason about concepts critically. We first used the MCQs with pre-clinical medical students on a summative exam in 2020, which served as a retrospective benchmark of their performance characteristics. After two years, the same questions were re-administered to volunteers from the same cohort of students in 2020.

Results: Retrospective analysis revealed that recall/verbatim questions were answered correctly more frequently (82.0% vs 60.9%, P = 0.002). Performance on concept/inference questions showed a significant decline, but a larger decline was observed for recall/verbatim questions after two years. Performance on concept/inference questions showed a slight decline across quartiles, while two years later, recall/verbatim questions experienced substantial performance loss. Subgroup analysis indicated convergence in performance on both question types, suggesting that the clinical relevance of the MCQ content may have influenced a regression toward a baseline mean.

Conclusion: These findings suggest conceptual/inferential thinking is more complex than rote memorization. However, the knowledge acquired is more durable in a longitudinal fashion, especially if it is reinforced in clinical settings.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Multi-Institutional Study Regarding the Perceptions of Students and Faculty Members About Constructive Feedback for Medical Students in Medical Education. Patient Safety Attitudes Among Saudi Medical Students and Interns: Insights for Improving Medical Education. Comparisons of the Academic Performance of Medical and Health-Sciences Students Related to Three Learning Methods: A Cross-Sectional Study. Confidence in Prescribing Practices: Perspectives of Senior Medical Students and Recent Graduates at Qatar University. Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.
×
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