Assessment Question Characteristics Predict Medical Student Performance in General Pathology

Evaluation of the quality of multiple-choice questions according to the students' academic level

BACKGROUND

One of the most important challenges in medical education is the preparation of multiple-choice questions able to discriminate between students with different academic level. Average questions may be very easy for students with good performance, reducing their discriminant power in this group of students. The aim of this study was to analyze if the discriminative power of multiple-choice questions is different according to the students' academic performance.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the difficulty and discrimination indices of 257 multiple-choice questions used for the end of course examination of pathophysiology and analyzed whether the discrimination indices were lower in students with good academic performance (group 1) than in students with moderate/poor academic performance (group 2). We also evaluated whether case-based questions maintained their discriminant power better than factual questions in both groups of students or not. Comparison of the difficulty and discrimination indices between both groups was based on the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Difficulty index was significantly higher in group 1 (median: 0.78 versus 0.56; P <  0.001) and discrimination index was significantly higher in group 2 (median: 0.21 versus 0.28; P <  0.001). Factual questions had higher discriminative indices in group 2 than in group 1 (median: 0.28 versus 0.20; P <  0.001), but discriminative indices of case-based questions did not differ significantly between groups (median: 0.30 versus 0.24; P = 0.296).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple-choice question exams have lower discriminative power in the group of students with high scores. The use of clinical vignettes may allow to maintain the discriminative power of multiple-choice questions.

Outcomes of Remote Pathology Instruction in Student Performance and Course Evaluation

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted undergraduate medical education, including preclinical class-based courses, by requiring social distancing and essentially eliminating in-person teaching. The aim of this study was to compare student performance and satisfaction before and after implementation of remote instruction in a first-year introductory pathology course. Assessments (3 quizzes, 1 practical exam, and 1 final) were compared between courses given before (January 2020) and during (January 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of mean scores, degree of difficulty, and item discrimination, both overall and across different question types. Students’ evaluations of the course (Likert scale-based) were also compared between the 2 years. Significantly higher mean scores were observed during remote instruction (compared to the prior, in-person year) on verbatim-repeated questions (94.9 ± 8.8 vs 89.4 ± 12.2; P = .002) and on questions incorporating a gross specimen image (88.4 ± 7.5 vs 84.4 ± 10.3; P = .007). The percentage of questions that were determined to be moderate/hard in degree of difficulty and good/very good in item discrimination remained similar between the 2 time periods. In the practical examination, students performed significantly better during remote instruction on questions without specimen images (96.5 ± 7.0 vs 91.2 ± 15.2; P = .004). Finally, course evaluation metrics improved, with students giving a higher mean rating value in each measured end point of course quality during the year of remote instruction. In conclusion, student performance and course satisfaction generally improved with remote instruction, suggesting that the changes implemented, and their consequences, should perhaps inform future curriculum improvements.