Using Automatic Item Generation to Create Multiple-Choice Questions for Pharmacy Assessment

被引:1
|
作者
Leslie, Tara [1 ]
Gierl, Mark J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Fac Pharm & Pharmaceut Sci, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Fac Educ, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
automatic item generation; multiple-choice questions; pharmacy assessment; test development; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.100081
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Objective: Automatic item generation (AIG) is a new area of assessment research where a set of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are created using models and computer technology. Although successfully demonstrated in medicine and dentistry, AIG has not been implemented in pharmacy. The objective was to implement AIG to create a set of MCQs appropriate for inclusion in a summative, high-stakes, pharmacy examination.Methods: A 3-step process, well evidenced in AIG research, was employed to create the pharmacy MCQs. The first step was developing a cognitive model based on content within the examination blueprint. Second, an item model was developed based on the cognitive model. A process of systematic distractor generation was also incorporated to optimize distractor plausibility. Third, we used computer technology to assemble a set of test items based on the cognitive and item models. A sample of generated items was assessed for quality against Gierl and Lai's 8 guidelines of item quality.Results: More than 15,000 MCQs were generated to measure knowledge and skill of patient assessment and treatment of nausea and/or vomiting within the scope of clinical pharmacy. A sample of generated items satisfies the requirements of content-related validity and quality after substantive review.Conclusion: This research demonstrates the AIG process is a viable strategy for creating a test item bank to provide MCQs appropriate for inclusion in a pharmacy licensing examination.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Writing Multiple-Choice Questions
    Boland, Robert J.
    Lester, Natalie A.
    Williams, Eric
    ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY, 2010, 34 (04) : 310 - 316
  • [32] CONTROVERSY - MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    ANDERSON, J
    MEDICAL TEACHER, 1979, 1 (01) : 37 - 42
  • [33] MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS IN ANESTHESIA
    GAJRAJ, NM
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 1994, 52 (06): : 275 - 277
  • [34] USEFULNESS OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    SCHEUFEN, KJ
    MUNCHENER MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1983, 125 (21): : A11 - A11
  • [35] Reutilization of multiple-choice questions
    Herskovic, P
    MEDICAL TEACHER, 1999, 21 (04) : 430 - 431
  • [36] MARKING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    GOLDSMITH, R
    CROW, TJ
    LANCET, 1969, 1 (7598): : 782 - +
  • [37] TEACHING WITH MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    JARNAGIN, BD
    HARRIS, JK
    ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 1977, 52 (04): : 930 - 934
  • [38] MARKING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    BUCKLEYS.MD
    HARRIS, FTC
    LANCET, 1969, 1 (7587): : 205 - &
  • [39] MARKING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
    DAVIS, AE
    PRESTON, GM
    LANCET, 1969, 1 (7593): : 528 - &
  • [40] Neurotrauma: In Multiple-Choice Questions
    McPheeters, Matthew J.
    Hoz, Samer S.
    Cherian, Iype
    Dolachee, Ali A.
    Al-Sharshahi, Zahraa F.
    Al-Dhahir, Mohammed A.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 91 (01) : E7 - E8