Abstract
Introduction Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs) may circumvent these limitations. We investigated VSAQ reliability, discriminative capability, acceptability, and knowledge retention compared to MCQs.
Methods Dutch undergraduate medical students (n=375) were randomised to a formative exam with VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in two courses, to determine reliability and discrimination. Next, acceptability (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Knowledge retention at 2 and 5 months was determined by comparing score increase on the three-monthly progress test (PT) between students tested with VSAQs and students from previous years tested without VSAQs.
Results Reliability (Cronbach’s α) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach’s α was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ±2 minutes on average. No clear effect on knowledge retention after 2 and 5 months was observed.
Discussion We found increased reliability and discrimination of VSAQs compared to MCQs. Reviewing time of VSAQs was acceptable. The association with knowledge retention was unclear in our study. This study supports and extends positive results of previous studies on VSAQs regarding reliability, discriminative capability, and acceptability in Dutch undergraduate medical students.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Educational Research Review Board of the Leiden University Medical Centre gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
