%0 Journal Article
%@ 2369-3762
%I 
%V 10
%N 
%P e58126
%T Use of Multiple-Choice Items in Summative Examinations: Questionnaire Survey Among German Undergraduate Dental Training Programs
%A Rössler,Lena
%A Herrmann,Manfred
%A Wiegand,Annette
%A Kanzow,Philipp
%K alternate-choice
%K assessment
%K best-answer
%K dental
%K dental schools
%K dental training
%K education
%K educational assessment
%K educational measurement
%K examination
%K German
%K Germany
%K k of n
%K Kprim
%K K’
%K medical education
%K medical student
%K MTF
%K Multiple-True-False
%K multiple choice
%K multiple-select
%K Pick-N
%K scoring
%K scoring system
%K single choice
%K single response
%K test
%K testing
%K true/false
%K true-false
%K Type A
%K Type K
%K Type K’
%K Type R
%K Type X
%K undergraduate
%K undergraduate curriculum
%K undergraduate education
%D 2024
%7 27.6.2024
%9 
%J JMIR Med Educ
%G English
%X 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. 
%R 10.2196/58126
%U https://mededu.jmir.org/2024/1/e58126
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/58126