zma000187 Kurzfassung Vortrag Fischer Fischer Martin M Dr. med.

Medizinische Klinik Innenstadt der Universität München, Schwerpunkt Medizindidaktik, Ziemssenstrasse 1, 80336 München, Deutschland, Tel.: 089/5160-2159Medizinische Klinik Innenstadt der Universität München, Schwerpunkt Medizindidaktik, München, Deutschland

fischer.martin@med.uni-muenchen.de author Bauer Bauer Daniel D author Kopp Kopp Veronika V author German Medical Science

Düsseldorf, Köln

610 Humanmedizin 20050715 20051118 engl 1860-3572 22 4 GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung GMS Z Med Ausbild 187 Workshop Objectives: To compare different scoring algorithms usually employed in determining students scores in multiple correct answer multiple-choice (MC) exams regarding performance, reliability, selectivity, and item difficulty. Methods: Data from 420 3rd year medical students' end of term exam in internal medicine in February 2005 at Munich University were analysed (30 MC questions; up to 15 possible answers, up to 6 correct answers per question, at least as many distractors as true answers). Scoring Algorithms: Each question scored a maximum of one point. No negative scores were applied. We compared: - "Dichotomous" (D): One point if all true and no wrong answers were chosen. - "Partial 1" (P1): One point for 100% true answers; 0.5 points for 50% or more true answers; zero points for less than 50% true answers. - "Partial 2" (P2): A fraction of one point depending on the total number of possible answers was given for each correct decision (picking a right or ignoring a wrong answer); for each wrong decision one such fraction was subtracted. Results: The P1-algorithm showed best results concerning item selectivity, item difficulties, and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), respectively. Conclusions: The P1-algorithm seems to be the preferable method for the scoring of multiple answer MC-exams. 0 0 0 0