Evidence-Based Decision About Test Scoring Rules in Clinical Anatomy Multiple-Choice Examinations

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2015

Authors

Severo M (Author) FMUP; Gaio, AR (Author) FCUP; Povo, A (Author) Other; Silva Pereira, F (Author) FMUP; Ferreira, MA (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Anatomical Sciences Education

Vol. 8

Pages: 242-248

ISSN: 1935-9772

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 3 Citations

Scopus - 3 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00A-28D

DOI: 10.1002/ase.1478

Abstract (EN): In theory the formula scoring methods increase the reliability of multiple-choice tests in comparison with number-right scoring. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the formula scoring method in clinical anatomy multiple-choice examinations, and to compare it with that from the number-right scoring method, hoping to achieve an evidence-based decision about test scoring rules. Two hundred and ninety-eight students completed an examination in clinical anatomy which included 40 multiple-choice questions with five response options each. Among these, 245 (82.2%) examinees were assessed according to the number-right scoring method (group A) while 53 (17.8%) were assessed according to the formula scoring method (group B). The prevalence of passing was significantly higher in group A than in group B, after correction of the pass and fail cutoffs for guessing (84.9% vs. 62.3%, P=0.005), keeping a similar reliability in both groups (0.7 vs. 0.8, P=0.094). Pearson Correlation coefficients between practical and theoretical examination scores were 0.66 [95%CI=(0.58-0.73)] and 0.72 [95%CI=(0.56-0.83)] for groups A and B, respectively. Based solely on the reliability and validity assessments, the test-maker could therefore use either scoring rules; however, if the test-maker also takes into account the students' ability to deduce answers with partial knowledge, then the number-right score rule is most appropriate. Anat Sci Educ 8: 242-248. (c) 2014 American Association of Anatomists.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 7