What faculty write versus what students see? Perspectives on multiple-choice questions using Bloom's taxonomy.

CONFIDENCE intervals; STAKEHOLDER analysis; COLLEGE teacher attitudes; EDUCATIONAL tests & measurements; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; STUDENT attitudes; DATA analysis software; STATISTICAL sampling; BLOOM'S taxonomy; MEDICAL education

Using revised Bloom's taxonomy, some medical educators assume they can write multiple choice questions (MCQs) that specifically assess higher (analyze, apply) versus lower-order (recall) learning. The purpose of this study was to determine whether three key stakeholder groups (students, faculty, and education assessment experts) assign MCQs the same higher- or lower-order level. In Phase 1, stakeholders' groups assigned 90 MCQs to Bloom's levels. In Phase 2, faculty wrote 25 MCQs specifically intended as higher- or lower-order. Then, 10 students assigned these questions to Bloom's levels. In Phase 1, there was low interrater reliability within the student group (Krippendorf's alpha = 0.37), the faculty group (alpha = 0.37), and among three groups (alpha = 0.34) when assigning questions as higher- or lower-order. The assessment team alone had high interrater reliability (alpha = 0.90). In Phase 2, 63% of students agreed with the faculty as to whether the MCQs were higher- or lower-order. There was low agreement between paired faculty and student ratings (Cohen's Kappa range.098–.448, mean.256). For many questions, faculty and students did not agree whether the questions were lower- or higher-order. While faculty may try to target specific levels of knowledge or clinical reasoning, students may approach the questions differently than intended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medical Teacher is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)