Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study Cover

Preferred question types for computer-based assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature study

Open Access
|Oct 2012

References

  1. 1.
    Spierenburg E. Eerste aanzet model voor klinisch redeneren in termen van onderliggende strategieën en benodigde kennis. Intern document Erasmus MC. 2007.
  2. 2.
    de Vries AC Custers EJFM ten Cate ThJ Leren klinisch redeneren en het ontwikkelen van ziektescripts: mogelijkheden in het medisch onderwijs Tijdschr Med Onderwijs. 2006 25 1 3 13 10.1007/BF03056709
  3. 3.
    Eva KW What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning Med Educ 2005 39 98 106 15612906 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x
  4. 4.
    Kassirer JP Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached Acad Med 2010 85 7 1118 1124 20603909 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d5dd0d
  5. 5.
    Beullens J Struyf E Van Damme B Do extended matching multiple-choice questions measure clinical reasoning? Med Educ 2005 39 410 417 15813764 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02089.x
  6. 6.
    Dochy F Nickmans G Competentiegericht opleiden en toetsen. Theorie en praktijk van flexibel leren 2005 Utrecht Lemma BV
  7. 7.
    Sibert L Darmoni SJ Dahamna B Hellot MF Weber J Charlin B Online clinical reasoning assessment with Script Concordance test in urology: results of a French pilot study BMC Med Educ 2006 28 1 9
  8. 8.
    Schuwirth LWT van der Vleuten CPM Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ 2004 38 974 979 15327679 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x
  9. 9.
    Rothoff T Baehring T Dicken HD Fahron U Richter MR Scherbaum WA Comparison between Long-Menu en Open-ended questions in computerized medical assessments. A randomized controlled trial BMC Med Educ 2006 6 1 9 10.1186/1472-6920-6-50
  10. 10.
    Schuwirth LWT van der Vleuten CPM Written assessment. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine Br Med J 2003 326 643 645 10.1136/bmj.326.7390.643
  11. 11.
    Case SM Swanson DB Extended-matching items: a practical alternative to free-response questions Teach Learn Med 1993 5 2 107 115 10.1080/10401339309539601
  12. 12.
    Carriere B Gagnon R Charlin B Downing S Bordage G Assessing clinical reasoning in pediatric emergency medicine: validity evidence for a script concordance test Ann Emerg Med 2009 53 5 647 652 18722694 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.07.024
  13. 13.
    Fournier JP Demeester A Charlin B Script Concordance Tests: guidelines for construction BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008 6 8 18
  14. 14.
    Goulet F Jacques A Gagnon R Charlin B Shabah A Poorly performing physicians: does the Script Concordance Test detect Bad clinical reasoning? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010 30 3 161 166 20872770 10.1002/chp.20076
  15. 15.
    Lambert C Gagnon R Nguyen D Charlin B The script concordance test in radiation oncology: validation study of a new tool to assess clinical reasoning Radiat Oncol. 2009 4 7 1 6
  16. 16.
    Park AJ Barber MD Bent AE Assessment of intraoperative judgment during gynecologic surgery using the Script Concordance Test Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010 3 240.e1 240 e6 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.010
  17. 17.
    Beullens J van Damme B Jaspaert H Janssen PJ Are extended-matching multiple-choice items appropriate for a final test in medical education? Med Teach 2002 24 4 390 395 12193322 10.1080/0142159021000000843
  18. 18.
    Bhakta B Tennant A Horton M Lawton G Andrich D Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extended matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education BMC Med Educ 2005 5 9 15752421 10.1186/1472-6920-5-9
  19. 19.
    Coderre SP Harasym P Mandin H Fick G The impact of two multiple-choice question formats on the problem-solving strategies used by novices and experts BMC Med Educ 2004 4 23 1 9
  20. 20.
    Samuels A Extended Matching Questions and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists written examination: an overview Australas Psychiatry. 2006 14 1 63 66 16630201
  21. 21.
    Ber R The CIP (comprehensive integrative puzzle) assessment method Med Teach 2003 25 171 176 12745526 10.1080/0142159031000092571
  22. 22.
    Groothoff JW Frenkel J Tytgat GA Vreede WB Bosman DK ten Cate Th J Growth of analytical thinking skills over time as measured with the MATCH test Med Educ 2008 42 10 1037 1043 18823523 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03152.x
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Palmer EJ Devitt PG Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple-choice questions? BMC Med Educ 2007 7 49 1 7
  25. 25.
    Rademakers JJDJM ten Cate ThJ Bär PR Progress testing with short answer questions Med Teach 2005 27 578 582 16332547 10.1080/01421590500062749 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2MnltF2guw%3D%3D
  26. 26.
    Case SM Swanson DB Ripkey DR Multiple-choice question strategies. Comparison of items in five-option and extended-matching formats for assessment of diagnostic skills Acad Med 1994 69 10 1 3 10.1097/00001888-199410000-00023
  27. 27.
    Schuwirth LWT van Berkel H Bax A Toetsen met korte casussen Toetsen in het hoger onderwijs (127–143) 2006 Houten Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
  28. 28.
    Kelly S Dennick R Evidence of gender bias in True-False-Abstain medical examinations BMC Med Educ. 2009 9 32 19500414 10.1186/1472-6920-9-32
  29. 29.
    Pamphlett R It takes only 100 true-false items to test medical students: true or false? Med Teach 2005 27 468 472 16147803 10.1080/01421590500097018
  30. 30.
    Cook DA Triola MM Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps Med Educ 2009 43 4 303 311 19335571 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x
  31. 31.
    Gesundheit N Brutlag P Youngblood P Gunning WT Zary N Fors U The use of virtual patients to assess the clinical skills and reasoning of medical students: initial insights on student acceptance Med Teach 2009 31 8 739 742 19811211 10.1080/01421590903126489
  32. 32.
    Waldmann UM Gulich MS Zeitler HP Virtual Patients for assessing medical students—important aspects when considering the introduction of a new assessment format Med Teach 2008 30 1 17 24 18278646 10.1080/01421590701758616
Language: English
Published on: Oct 2, 2012
Published by: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2012 Lisette van Bruggen, Margreet Manrique-van Woudenbergh, Emely Spierenburg, Jacqueline Vos, published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.