...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Fixed or mixed: a comparison of three, four and mixed-option multiple-choice tests in a Fetal Surveillance Education Program
【24h】

Fixed or mixed: a comparison of three, four and mixed-option multiple-choice tests in a Fetal Surveillance Education Program

机译:固定或混合:胎儿监护教育计划中三项,四项和混合选项多项选择测验的比较

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Despite the widespread use of multiple-choice assessments in medical education assessment, current practice and published advice concerning the number of response options remains equivocal. This article describes an empirical study contrasting the quality of three 60 item multiple-choice test forms within the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) Fetal Surveillance Education Program (FSEP). The three forms are described below. Methods The first form featured four response options per item. The second form featured three response options, having removed the least functioning option from each item in the four-option counterpart. The third test form was constructed by retaining the best performing version of each item from the first two test forms. It contained both three and four option items. Results Psychometric and educational factors were taken into account in formulating an approach to test construction for the FSEP. The four-option test performed better than the three-option test overall, but some items were improved by the removal of options. The mixed-option test demonstrated better measurement properties than the fixed-option tests, and has become the preferred test format in the FSEP program. The criteria used were reliability, errors of measurement and fit to the item response model. Conclusions The position taken is that decisions about the number of response options be made at the item level, with plausible options being added to complete each item on both psychometric and educational grounds rather than complying with a uniform policy. The point is to construct the better performing item in providing the best psychometric and educational information.
机译:背景技术尽管在医学教育评估中广泛使用了多项选择评估,但是关于应对方案数量的当前实践和已发表的建议仍然含糊不清。本文介绍了一项实证研究,对比了澳大利亚皇家新西兰妇产科学院(RANZCOG)胎儿监护教育计划(FSEP)中三种60项多项选择测试表格的质量。下面介绍这三种形式。方法第一种形式的每个项目具有四个响应选项。第二种形式具有三个响应选项,从四选项对应项的每个项中删除了功能最差的选项。通过保留前两个测试表格中各项的最佳性能版本,构造了第三种测试表格。它包含三个和四个选项。结果在制定FSEP测试结构的方法时,考虑了心理和教育因素。总体而言,四选项测试的效果要优于三选项测试,但是通过删除选项,一些项目得到了改善。混合选项测试显示出比固定选项测试更好的测量属性,并且已成为FSEP程序中的首选测试格式。使用的标准是可靠性,测量误差和是否适合项目响应模型。结论所采取的立场是,在项目级别上决定应对选项的数量,并添加可能的选项以从心理和教育的角度完成每个项目,而不是遵循统一的政策。重点是在提供最佳的心理和教育信息方面构建性能更好的项目。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号