MATERIALS AND METHODS: MCQ items in papers taken from Year II Parts A, B and C examinations for Sessions 2001/02, and Part B examinations for 2002/03 and 2003/04, were analysed to obtain their difficulty indices and discrimination indices. Each paper consisted of 250 true/false items (50 questions of 5 items each) on topics drawn from different disciplines. The questions were first constructed and vetted by the individual departments before being submitted to a central committee, where the final selection of the MCQs was made, based purely on the academic judgement of the committee.
RESULTS: There was a wide distribution of item difficulty indices in all the MCQ papers analysed. Furthermore, the relationship between the difficulty index (P) and discrimination index (D) of the MCQ items in a paper was not linear, but more dome-shaped. Maximal discrimination (D = 51% to 71%) occurred with moderately easy/difficult items (P = 40% to 74%). On average, about 38% of the MCQ items in each paper were "very easy" (P > or =75%), while about 9% were "very difficult" (P <25%). About two-thirds of these very easy/difficult items had "very poor" or even negative discrimination (D < or =20%).
CONCLUSIONS: MCQ items that demonstrate good discriminating potential tend to be moderately difficult items, and the moderately-to-very difficult items are more likely to show negative discrimination. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of our MCQ items.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of the tutors who had used the instrument was conducted to determine whether the assessment instrument or form was user-friendly. The 4 competencies assessed, using a 5-point rating scale, were (1) participation and communication skills, (2) cooperation or team-building skills, (3) comprehension or reasoning skills and (4) knowledge or information-gathering skills. Tutors were given a set of criteria guidelines for scoring the students' performance in these 4 competencies. Tutors were not attached to a particular PBL group, but took turns to facilitate different groups on different case or problem discussions. Assessment scores for one cohort of undergraduate medical students in their respective PBL groups in Year I (2003/2004) and Year II (2004/2005) were analysed. The consistency of scores was analysed using intraclass correlation.
RESULTS: The majority of the tutors surveyed expressed no difficulty in using the instrument and agreed that it helped them assess the students fairly. Analysis of the scores obtained for the above cohort indicated that the different raters were relatively consistent in their assessment of student performance, despite a small number consistently showing either "strict" or "indiscriminate" rating practice.
CONCLUSION: The instrument designed for the assessment of student performance in the PBL tutorial classroom setting is user-friendly and is reliable when used judiciously with the criteria guidelines provided.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted via a validated 49-item questionnaire, administered immediately after all students completed the examination. The questionnaire comprised of questions to evaluate the content and structure of the examination, perception of OSCE validity and reliability, and rating of OSCE in relation to other assessment methods. Open-ended follow-up questions were included to generate qualitative data.
RESULTS: Over 80% of the students found the OSCE to be helpful in highlighting areas of weaknesses in their clinical competencies. Seventy-eight percent agreed that it was comprehensive and 66% believed it was fair. About 46% felt that the 15 minutes allocated per station was inadequate. Most importantly, about half of the students raised concerns that personality, ethnicity, and/or gender, as well as interpatient and inter-assessor variability were potential sources of bias that could affect their scores. However, an overwhelming proportion of the students (90%) agreed that the OSCE provided a useful and practical learning experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Students' perceptions and acceptance of the new method of assessment were positive. The survey further highlighted for future refinement the strengths and weaknesses associated with the development and implementation of an OSCE in the International Islamic University Malaysia's pharmacy curriculum.
METHODS: COPT was a teaching strategy wherein, students were taught physiology using cases and critical thinking questions. Three batches of undergraduate medical students (n = 434) served as the experimental groups to whom COPT was incorporated in the third block (teaching unit) of Physiology curriculum and one batch (n = 149) served as the control group to whom COPT was not incorporated. The experimental group of students were trained to answer clinically oriented questions whereas the control group of students were not trained. Both the group of students undertook a block exam which consisted of clinically oriented questions and recall questions, at the end of each block.
RESULTS: Comparison of pre-COPT and post-COPT essay exam scores of experimental group of students revealed that the post-COPT scores were significantly higher compared to the pre-COPT scores. Comparison of post-COPT essay exam scores of the experimental group and control group of students revealed that the experimental group of students performed better compared to the control group. Feedback from the students indicated that they preferred COPT to didactic lectures.
CONCLUSION: The study supports the fact that assessment and teaching patterns should fall in line with each other as proved by the better performance of the experimental group of students compared to the control group. COPT was also found to be a useful adjunct to didactic lectures in teaching physiology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review is on some of the issues in standard setting based on the published articles of educational assessment researchers.
RESULTS: Standard or cut-off score should be to determine whether the examinee attained the requirement to be certified competent. There is no perfect method to determine cut score on a test and none is agreed upon as the best method. Setting standard is not an exact science. Legitimacy of the standard is supported when performance standard is linked to the requirement of practice. Test-curriculum alignment and content validity are important for most educational test validity arguments.
CONCLUSION: Representative percentage of must-know learning objectives in the curriculum may be the basis of test items and pass/fail marks. Practice analysis may help in identifying the must-know areas of curriculum. Cut score set by this procedure may give the credibility, validity, defensibility and comparability of the standard. Constructing the test items by subject experts and vetted by multi-disciplinary faculty members may ensure the reliability of the test as well as the standard.