Pérez MLU, Murillo JG, Cobas PJL, Navarro AR, García DV, Pérez MGA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 484-490
PDF size: 54.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The difficulty index and the discrimination power are easy indicators to calculate and useful for the analysis of the correspondence between the expected and obtained results of an evaluative instrument. Objective: To evaluate the quality of questions of the regular final examination of Human Mophophysiology V.
Methods: The 265 theoretical examinations carried out by the second year students in the Medical Faculty No. 2 of the Medical University in Santiago de Cuba, during the course 2011-2012 were included in this investigation, to which the difficulty index and the discriminating power were calculated in each of the 7 applied questions.
Results: The questions with alternative answer which evaluated the contents on blood and heart, showed a difficulty index below 0.1 and a discriminating power lower than 0.2, making necessary their reformulation in future evaluative instruments. The highest values for both indicators were 0.34 and 0.86, respectively, and they corresponded to a question of multiple selections on blood and lymphatic vessels, followed in order by the questions of open answer.
Conclusions: The relevancy of most of the questions was demonstrated, and the capacity of 5 of them to distinguish students of high and low performances was emphasized.

REFERENCES

1. Salas Perea RS. La evaluación en la educación superior contemporánea. 2 ed. San Francisco de Macorís: Universidad Católica Nordestana; 2005.

2. Palmer EJ, Devitt PG. Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research Paper. BMC Med Educ. 2007; 7: 49-55.

3. Stupans I. Multiple choice questions: Can they examine application of knowledge? Pharmacy Education. 2006; 6(1): 59–63.

4. Cañizares Luna O, Sarasa Muñóz N. Algunas reflexiones acerca de los recursos para el aprendizaje de la disciplina Morfofisiología Humana. Educ Med Super. 2007 [citado 12 Feb 2012]; 21(2). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864- 21412007000200001&lng=es

5. Rodríguez Cortés V, Del Pino Sánchez E. Proceso docente educativo: una visión para el profesor de la asignatura de Morfofisiología Humana (I). Educ Med Super. 2009 [citado 12 Feb 2012]; 23(3). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864- 21412009000300010&lng=es

6. Pérez Marqués LU, Murillo Jorge G. Experiencias en el uso de preguntas tipo test objetivo en Morfofisiología Humana [monografía en CD-ROM]. Santiago de Cuba: FACMED/FRH; 2010.

7. Brodin U, Fors U, Laksov KB. The application of Item Response Theory on a teaching strategy profile questionnaire. BMC Med Educ. 2010 [citado 3 Mar 2012]; 10(14): 1- 30. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2830224/

8. Carneson J, Delpierre G, Masters K. Scorings and statistics. Question attributes. En: Randall V. Designing and managing of multiple choice questions. Dayton : The University of Dayton School of Law [citado 3 Mar 2012]; 2008. Disponible en: http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/ProfResp/00Syllabus/extracredit02e.html

9. Pérez Marqués LU, Murillo Jorge G, Cobas Pérez JL, Navarro Alemán R, Poll Feris E. Índice de dificultad de las preguntas del examen final ordinario de Morfofisiología Humana VI [monografía en CD-ROM]. Santiago de Cuba: Pedagogía y Salud; 2011.

10. Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine written assessment. BMJ. 2003; 326(7390): 643-5.

11. Epstein RM. Assessment in Medical Education. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(4): 387-96.

12. Carrazana Lee A, Salas Perea RS, Ruiz Salvador AK. Nivel de dificultad y poder de discriminación del examen diagnóstico de la asignatura Morfofisiología Humana I. Educ Med Super. 2011 [citado 4 Dic 2011]; 25(1): 103-14. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864- 21412011000100010&lng=es