Comparison of Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) and Number Right Scoring (NRS) in Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessments: A Prospective Cohort Study of Second-Year Medical Students

多项选择题(MCQ)评估中基于确定性评分(CBM)和正确答案数量评分(NRS)的比较:一项针对二年级医学生的前瞻性队列研究

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with number right scoring (NRS) are now the most preferred assessment method in medical education, which requires program holders to ensure their fairness for profound decision-making and policy arrangements. Including certainty-based marking (CBM) in MCQ exams is suggested to help better distinguish students and thus increase the validity of assessments. This study aims to integrate CBM into MCQ assessments using a relatively new scoring matrix to assess pass/fail rates and exam scores. METHODS: Students in their second year of medical school participated in ten different CBM-MCQ exams. Questions were scored twice: first, traditionally using the NRS, and second, using the CBM (based on correctness and a self-report certainty scale), yielding two different final scores for each student. Exam scores and pass/fail rates were compared using paired t-tests and McNemar tests, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 935 students in 10 different exams were included in the study. CBM scores were significantly lower than NRS scores (0.82 points; P<0.001). There was a significant shift in the pass/fail classifications (P<0.001). Overall, 34 out of 141 NRS failures (24.1%) passed under CBM, while 85 (10.7%) of the 794 students who passed under NRS failed under CBM. This significant shift was also reported in 5 of 10 exams (P<0.05). Additionally, there was a trend towards worsening scores in CBM compared to NRS. Students with "A" grades decreased from 8.4% to 4.7% while students with "D" grades increased from 15.1% to 20.5%. CONCLUSION: CBM yields significantly different scores compared to NRS, as evidenced by distinct pass/fail rates, suggesting the potential for a better assessment tool. Further studies with different types of assessments are needed to validate this method in terms of reducing cheating and guesswork. However, replacing CBM with conventional scoring methods requires further evidence and consideration.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。