Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 6/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Original Article

Re-using questions in classroom-based assessment: An exploratory study at the undergraduate medical education level

Authors: Sébastien Xavier Joncas, Christina St-Onge, Sylvie Bourque, Paul Farand

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

To alleviate some of the burden associated with the development of novel quality questions on a regular basis, medical education programs may favour the use of item banks. This practice answers the real pragmatic need of having to create exams de novo at each administration while benefiting from using psychometrically sound questions to assess students. Unfortunately, programs cannot prevent trainees from engaging in cheating behaviours such as content sharing, and little is known about the impact of re-using items.

Methods

We conducted an exploratory descriptive study to assess the effect of repeated use of banked items within an in-house assessment context. The difficulty and discrimination coefficients for the 16-unit exams of the past 5 years (1,629 questions) were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVAs.

Results

Difficulty coefficients increased significantly (M = 79.8% for the first use of an item, to a mean difficulty coefficient of 85.2% for the fourth use) and discrimination coefficients decreased significantly with repeated uses (M = 0.17, 0.16, 0.14, 0.14 for the first, second, third and fourth uses respectively).

Discussion

The results from our study suggest that using an item three times or more within a short time span may cause a significant risk to its psychometric properties and consequently to the quality of the examination. Pooling items from different institutions or the recourse to automatic generated items could offer a greater pool of questions to administrators and faculty members while limiting the re-use of questions within a short time span.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med. 2002;77:156–61.CrossRef Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med. 2002;77:156–61.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82.CrossRef Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Norman G, Norcini J, Bordage G. Competency-based education: milestones or millstones? J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:1–6.CrossRef Norman G, Norcini J, Bordage G. Competency-based education: milestones or millstones? J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:1–6.CrossRef
4.
5.
go back to reference Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 2002;15:309–34.CrossRef Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 2002;15:309–34.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wallach PM, Crespo LM, Holtzman KZ, Galbraith RM, Swanson DB. Use of a committee review process to improve the quality of course examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11:61–8.CrossRef Wallach PM, Crespo LM, Holtzman KZ, Galbraith RM, Swanson DB. Use of a committee review process to improve the quality of course examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11:61–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Vachon-Lachiver E, St-Onge C, Cloutier J, Farand P. La rédaction de questions à choix multiple et de questions à réponse ouverte et courte pour les examens écrits dans les programmes de formation en santé: une étude docimologique des consignes de rédaction. Pedagog Med. 2017;18:55–64. Vachon-Lachiver E, St-Onge C, Cloutier J, Farand P. La rédaction de questions à choix multiple et de questions à réponse ouverte et courte pour les examens écrits dans les programmes de formation en santé: une étude docimologique des consignes de rédaction. Pedagog Med. 2017;18:55–64.
9.
go back to reference Varpio L, Aschenbrener C, Bates J. Tackling wicked problems: how theories of agency can provide new insights. Med Educ. 2017;51:353–65.CrossRef Varpio L, Aschenbrener C, Bates J. Tackling wicked problems: how theories of agency can provide new insights. Med Educ. 2017;51:353–65.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference O’Neill TR, Sun L, Peabody MR, Royal KD. The impact of repeated exposure to items. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27:404–9.CrossRef O’Neill TR, Sun L, Peabody MR, Royal KD. The impact of repeated exposure to items. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27:404–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Haladyna TM, Rodriguez MC. Developing and validating test items. New York: Routledge; 2013.CrossRef Haladyna TM, Rodriguez MC. Developing and validating test items. New York: Routledge; 2013.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Smith RW, Prometric T. The impact of braindump sites on item exposure and item parameter drift. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association; San Diego. 2004. Smith RW, Prometric T. The impact of braindump sites on item exposure and item parameter drift. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association; San Diego. 2004.
13.
go back to reference Veerkamp WJJ, Glas CAW. Detection of known items in adaptive testing with a statistical quality control method. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25:373–89.CrossRef Veerkamp WJJ, Glas CAW. Detection of known items in adaptive testing with a statistical quality control method. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25:373–89.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Baldwin JDC, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD, Schwarz MD. Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Acad Med. 1996;71:267–73.CrossRef Baldwin JDC, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD, Schwarz MD. Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Acad Med. 1996;71:267–73.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Gotzmann A, De Champlain A, Homayra F, et al. Cheating in OSCes: the impact of simulated security breaches on OSCE performance. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29:52–8.CrossRef Gotzmann A, De Champlain A, Homayra F, et al. Cheating in OSCes: the impact of simulated security breaches on OSCE performance. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29:52–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Downing SM. Threats to the validity of locally developed multiple-choice tests in medical education: construct-irrelevant variance and construct underrepresentation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7:235–41.CrossRef Downing SM. Threats to the validity of locally developed multiple-choice tests in medical education: construct-irrelevant variance and construct underrepresentation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7:235–41.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sierles F, Hendrickx I. Cheating in medical school. Acad Med. 1980;55:124–5.CrossRef Sierles F, Hendrickx I. Cheating in medical school. Acad Med. 1980;55:124–5.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Rennie SC, Crosby JR. Are ‘tomorrow’s doctors’ honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. BMJ. 2001;322:274–5.CrossRef Rennie SC, Crosby JR. Are ‘tomorrow’s doctors’ honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. BMJ. 2001;322:274–5.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hrabak M, Vujaklija A, Vodopivec I, Hren D, Marušić M, Marušić A. Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Med Educ. 2004;38:276–85.CrossRef Hrabak M, Vujaklija A, Vodopivec I, Hren D, Marušić M, Marušić A. Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Med Educ. 2004;38:276–85.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Henning MA, Ram S, Malpas P, Shulruf B, Kelly F, Hawken SJ. Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1211–e7.CrossRef Henning MA, Ram S, Malpas P, Shulruf B, Kelly F, Hawken SJ. Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1211–e7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hafeez K, Khan ML, Jawaid M, Haroon S. Academic misconduct among students in medical colleges of Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:699.CrossRef Hafeez K, Khan ML, Jawaid M, Haroon S. Academic misconduct among students in medical colleges of Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:699.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Raymond MR, Neustel S, Anderson D. Retest effects on identical and parallel forms in certification and licensure testing. Pers Psychol. 2007;60:367–96.CrossRef Raymond MR, Neustel S, Anderson D. Retest effects on identical and parallel forms in certification and licensure testing. Pers Psychol. 2007;60:367–96.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wood TJ. The effect of reused questions on repeat examinees. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:465–73.CrossRef Wood TJ. The effect of reused questions on repeat examinees. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:465–73.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Raymond MR, Neustel S, Anderson D. Same-form retest effects on credentialing examinations. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2009;28:19–27.CrossRef Raymond MR, Neustel S, Anderson D. Same-form retest effects on credentialing examinations. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2009;28:19–27.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Friedman H. Repeat examinations in introductory statistics courses. Teach Psychol. 1987;14:20–3.CrossRef Friedman H. Repeat examinations in introductory statistics courses. Teach Psychol. 1987;14:20–3.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Geving AM, Webb S, Davis B. Opportunities for repeat testing: practice doesn’t always make perfect. Appl HMR Res. 2005;10:47–56. Geving AM, Webb S, Davis B. Opportunities for repeat testing: practice doesn’t always make perfect. Appl HMR Res. 2005;10:47–56.
27.
go back to reference Park YS, Yang EB. Three controversies over item disclosure in medical licensure examinations. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:28821.CrossRef Park YS, Yang EB. Three controversies over item disclosure in medical licensure examinations. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:28821.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Reise SP, Revicki DA. Handbook of item response theory modeling: applications to typical performance assessment. New York: Routledge; 2014.CrossRef Reise SP, Revicki DA. Handbook of item response theory modeling: applications to typical performance assessment. New York: Routledge; 2014.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1991. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1991.
30.
go back to reference Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2006. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2006.
31.
go back to reference IBM Corp. SPSS statistics for Windows, version 22.0. Armonk: NY; 2013. IBM Corp. SPSS statistics for Windows, version 22.0. Armonk: NY; 2013.
32.
go back to reference Gierl MJ, Lai H. Evaluating the quality of medical multiple-choice items created with automated processes. Med Educ. 2013;47:726–33.CrossRef Gierl MJ, Lai H. Evaluating the quality of medical multiple-choice items created with automated processes. Med Educ. 2013;47:726–33.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Gierl M, Hollis L, Zhang X. Automatic item generation. In: Encyclopedia of information science and technology. 4th ed. Hershey: IGI Global; 2018. pp. 2369–79.CrossRef Gierl M, Hollis L, Zhang X. Automatic item generation. In: Encyclopedia of information science and technology. 4th ed. Hershey: IGI Global; 2018. pp. 2369–79.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Pugh D, De Champlain A, Gierl M, Lai H, Touchie C. Using cognitive models to develop quality multiple-choice questions. Med Teach. 2016;38:838–43.CrossRef Pugh D, De Champlain A, Gierl M, Lai H, Touchie C. Using cognitive models to develop quality multiple-choice questions. Med Teach. 2016;38:838–43.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Gierl MJ, Lai H, Turner SR. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items. Med Educ. 2012;46:757–65.CrossRef Gierl MJ, Lai H, Turner SR. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items. Med Educ. 2012;46:757–65.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Re-using questions in classroom-based assessment: An exploratory study at the undergraduate medical education level
Authors
Sébastien Xavier Joncas
Christina St-Onge
Sylvie Bourque
Paul Farand
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0482-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Perspectives on Medical Education 6/2018 Go to the issue