@Article{info:doi/10.2196/58126,
author="R{\"o}ssler, Lena
and Herrmann, Manfred
and Wiegand, Annette
and Kanzow, Philipp",
title="Use of Multiple-Choice Items in Summative Examinations: Questionnaire Survey Among German Undergraduate Dental Training Programs",
journal="JMIR Med Educ",
year="2024",
month="Jun",
day="27",
volume="10",
pages="e58126",
keywords="alternate-choice; assessment; best-answer; dental; dental schools; dental training; education; educational assessment; educational measurement; examination; German; Germany; k of n; Kprim; K'; medical education; medical student; MTF; Multiple-True-False; multiple choice; multiple-select; Pick-N; scoring; scoring system; single choice; single response; test; testing; true/false; true-false; Type A; Type K; Type K'; Type R; Type X; undergraduate; undergraduate curriculum; undergraduate education",
abstract="Background: Multiple-choice examinations are frequently used in German dental schools. However, details regarding the used item types and applied scoring methods are lacking. Objective: This study aims to gain insight into the current use of multiple-choice items (ie, questions) in summative examinations in German undergraduate dental training programs. Methods: A paper-based 10-item questionnaire regarding the used assessment methods, multiple-choice item types, and applied scoring methods was designed. The pilot-tested questionnaire was mailed to the deans of studies and to the heads of the Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry at all 30 dental schools in Germany in February 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test (P<.05). Results: The response rate amounted to 90{\%} (27/30 dental schools). All respondent dental schools used multiple-choice examinations for summative assessments. Examinations were delivered electronically by 70{\%} (19/27) of the dental schools. Almost all dental schools used single-choice Type A items (24/27, 89{\%}), which accounted for the largest number of items in approximately half of the dental schools (13/27, 48{\%}). Further item types (eg, conventional multiple-select items, Multiple-True-False, and Pick-N) were only used by fewer dental schools (≤67{\%}, up to 18 out of 27 dental schools). For the multiple-select item types, the applied scoring methods varied considerably (ie, awarding [intermediate] partial credit and requirements for partial credit). Dental schools with the possibility of electronic examinations used multiple-select items slightly more often (14/19, 74{\%} vs 4/8, 50{\%}). However, this difference was statistically not significant (P=.38). Dental schools used items either individually or as key feature problems consisting of a clinical case scenario followed by a number of items focusing on critical treatment steps (15/27, 56{\%}). Not a single school used alternative testing methods (eg, answer-until-correct). A formal item review process was established at about half of the dental schools (15/27, 56{\%}). Conclusions: Summative assessment methods among German dental schools vary widely. Especially, a large variability regarding the use and scoring of multiple-select multiple-choice items was found. ",
issn="2369-3762",
doi="10.2196/58126",
url="https://mededu.jmir.org/2024/1/e58126",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/58126"
}