Display options
Cite
Hift RJ. Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:249doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2.
Hift, R. J. (2014). Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?. BMC medical education, 14249. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2
Hift, Richard J. "Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?." BMC medical education vol. 14 (2014): 249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2
Hift RJ. Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2. PMID: 25431359; PMCID: PMC4275935.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2.

Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?.

BMC medical education

Richard J Hift

PMID: 25431359 PMCID: PMC4275935 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Written assessments fall into two classes: constructed-response or open-ended questions, such as the essay and a number of variants of the short-answer question, and selected-response or closed-ended questions; typically in the form of multiple-choice. It is widely believed that constructed response written questions test higher order cognitive processes in a manner that multiple-choice questions cannot, and consequently have higher validity.

DISCUSSION: An extensive review of the literature suggests that in summative assessment neither premise is evidence-based. Well-structured open-ended and multiple-choice questions appear equivalent in their ability to assess higher cognitive functions, and performance in multiple-choice assessments may correlate more highly than the open-ended format with competence demonstrated in clinical practice following graduation. Studies of construct validity suggest that both formats measure essentially the same dimension, at least in mathematics, the physical sciences, biology and medicine. The persistence of the open-ended format in summative assessment may be due to the intuitive appeal of the belief that synthesising an answer to an open-ended question must be both more cognitively taxing and similar to actual experience than is selecting a correct response. I suggest that cognitive-constructivist learning theory would predict that a well-constructed context-rich multiple-choice item represents a complex problem-solving exercise which activates a sequence of cognitive processes which closely parallel those required in clinical practice, hence explaining the high validity of the multiple-choice format.

SUMMARY: The evidence does not support the proposition that the open-ended assessment format is superior to the multiple-choice format, at least in exit-level summative assessment, in terms of either its ability to test higher-order cognitive functioning or its validity. This is explicable using a theory of mental models, which might predict that the multiple-choice format will have higher validity, a statement for which some empiric support exists. Given the superior reliability and cost-effectiveness of the multiple-choice format consideration should be given to phasing out open-ended format questions in summative assessment. Whether the same applies to non-exit-level assessment and formative assessment is a question which remains to be answered; particularly in terms of the educational effect of testing, an area which deserves intensive study.

References

  1. Lancet. 2001 Mar 24;357(9260):945-9 - PubMed
  2. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2014 Mar;20(1):3-21 - PubMed
  3. Psychol Bull. 2002 Jul;128(4):612-37 - PubMed
  4. Med Educ. 2002 Oct;36(10):901-9 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2003 Mar 22;326(7390):643-5 - PubMed
  6. Med Educ. 2003 Sep;37(9):830-7 - PubMed
  7. Med Educ. 2004 Sep;38(9):974-9 - PubMed
  8. Med Educ. 2004 Oct;38(10):1111-6 - PubMed
  9. Med Educ. 1985 May;19(3):238-47 - PubMed
  10. Phys Ther. 1985 Jul;65(7):1075-9 - PubMed
  11. Med Educ. 1986 Mar;20(2):126-32 - PubMed
  12. Med Educ. 1987 Jul;21(4):297-304 - PubMed
  13. Med Educ. 1988 Jul;22(4):279-86 - PubMed
  14. Fam Med. 1989 Sep-Oct;21(5):364-7 - PubMed
  15. Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7 - PubMed
  16. Acad Med. 1990 Oct;65(10):611-21 - PubMed
  17. Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):309-17 - PubMed
  18. Harv Bus Rev. 2007 Jul-Aug;85(7-8):114-21, 193 - PubMed
  19. Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1133-9 - PubMed
  20. Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1140-5 - PubMed
  21. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:49 - PubMed
  22. Exp Psychol. 2008;55(1):23-30 - PubMed
  23. Med Teach. 2010;32(2):154-60 - PubMed
  24. Med Teach. 2010;32(7):e300-7 - PubMed
  25. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-14 - PubMed
  26. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):224-33 - PubMed
  27. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-85 - PubMed
  28. Med Teach. 2011;33(10):783-97 - PubMed
  29. Med Educ. 2012 Jan;46(1):38-48 - PubMed
  30. Med Teach. 2012;34(1):20-4 - PubMed
  31. Med Educ. 2012 Nov;46(11):1087-98 - PubMed
  32. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Nov;39(6):1712-25 - PubMed
  33. Med Educ. 2014 Mar;48(3):255-61 - PubMed
  34. Med Educ. 2001 Apr;35(4):348-56 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support