A comparison of clinical-scenario (case cluster) versus stand-alone multiple choice questions in a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate medicine.

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare stand-alone multiple choice questions (MCQs) and integrated clinical-scenario (case cluster) multiple choice questions (CS-MCQs) in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment.MethodsA retrospective descriptive analysis of MCQ examinations was conducted in a course that integrates the subspecialties of anatomical pathology, chemical pathology, hematology, immunology, microbiology and pharmacology. The MCQ items were analyzed for their reliability (Kuder–Richardson-20, KR-20), level of difficulty (Pi), discrimination index (Di), item distractors and student performances. The statistical analysis of the results was extracted from the integrity online item-analysis programme. The results of the standard stand-alone and CS multiple choice questions were compared.ResultsKR-20 for the CS-MCQs and stand-alone MCQs was consistently high. KR-20 and Pi were higher for the CS-MCQs. There was no significant difference between the CS-MCQs and stand-alone MCQs in Pi and Di. A range of difficulty levels was found based on Bloom's taxonomy. The mean scores for the class were higher for the CS-MCQ examination. The compilation of the CS-MCQ examination was more challenging.ConclusionsCS-MCQs compare favorably to stand-alone MCQs and provide opportunities for the integration of sub-specialties and assessment in keeping with PBL. They assess students' cognitive skills and are reliable and practical. Different levels of item difficulty promote multi-logical and critical thinking. Students' scores were higher for the CS-MCQ examination, which may suggest better understanding of the material and/or better question clarity. The scenarios have to flow logically. Increasing the number of scenarios ensures the examination of more course content.