Table of Contents
ISRN Education
Volume 2013, Article ID 840627, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/840627
Research Article

Can We Share Multiple Choice Questions across Borders? Validation of the Dutch Knowledge Assessment in Family Medicine in Flanders

1Interuniversity Centre for Education in General Practice, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Block J, P.O. Box 7001, Belgium
2Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185-6K3, Belgium
3University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, D.R. 315, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
4Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre of General Practice, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Block J, P.O. Box 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
5Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre of General Practice, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
6Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre of General Practice, Academic Teaching Practice, Leuven, Belgium

Received 21 August 2013; Accepted 30 September 2013

Academic Editors: K. Kingsley and R. Pasnak

Copyright © 2013 Lynn Ryssaert et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. P. Coderre, P. Harasym, H. Mandin, and G. Fick, “The impact of two multiple-choice question formats on the problem-solving strategies used by novices and experts,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 4, article 23, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. L. W. T. Schuwirth and C. P. M. van der Vleuten, “Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weakness?” Medical Education, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 974–979, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. O. Geneeskunde, “Richtlijnen mbt het evalueren van meerkeuzevragen voor de opleiding geneeskunde,” 2001.
  4. (NBME) NBoME, “Constructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences,” 2002.
  5. D. E. Campbell, “How to write good multiple-choice questions,” Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 322–325, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Chandratilake, M. Davis, and G. Ponnamperuma, “Assessment of medical knowledge: the pros and cons of using true/false multiple choice questions,” National Medical Journal of India, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 225–228, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. R. Richardson, “The multiple choice true/false question: what does it measure and what could it measure?” Medical Teacher, vol. 14, no. 2-3, pp. 201–204, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. Anderson, “Mutiple-choice questions revisited,” Medical Teacher, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 110–113, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. B. Bhakta, A. Tennant, M. Horton, G. Lawton, and D. Andrich, “Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extended matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 5, no. 9, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. Beullens, B. van Damme, H. Jaspaert, and P. J. Janssen, “Are extended-matching multiple-choice items appropriate for a final test in medical education?” Medical Teacher, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 390–395, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. S. Baird, “The new Extended Matching Question (EMQ) paper of the MFSRH examination,” Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 171–173, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. H. de Neve and P. Janssen, “Succesvol examineren in het hoger onderwijs,” Acco, Leuven, Belgium, 1992.
  13. J. Collins, “Writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules,” Radiographics, vol. 26, pp. 543–551, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  14. B. Schoenmakers, A. De Sutter, J. Kartounian, A. Stockmans, and J. Wens, “Project: Valideren van de Nederlandse Kennistoets in Vlaanderen”.
  15. A. F. De Champlain, “A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education,” Medical Education, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 109–117, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. Zumbairi and N. Kassim, “Classical and Rasch analyses of dichotomously scored reading comprehension test items,” Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, vol. 2, pp. 1–20, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  17. C. S. Tracy, G. C. Dantas, and R. E. G. Upshur, “Evidence-based medicine in primary care: qualitative study of family physicians,” BMC Family Practice, vol. 4, article 1, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Vanderbilt, M. Feldman, and I. Wood, “Assessment in undergraduate medical education: a review of course exams,” Medical Education Online, vol. 18, 2013. View at Google Scholar