DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20164760

Descriptive analysis of theory examination question papers of 2nd MBBS pharmacology of Krantiguru Shamji Krishna Verma Kachchh University (Gujarat)

Neelesh K. Khuteta, Manoj K. Saurabh

Abstract


Background: The Question Paper is the most important tool of theory exam examination. An attempt was made to assess the pharmacology question papers of university examination in accordance with their guidelines. To assess the pharmacology theory question papers for content validity, area of importance and to test the level of cognitive domain.

Methods: Twenty four papers of university comprising 695 questions after preparing 520 learning objective were analysed. All questions were analysed for coverage of different subdivision of Pharmacology and marks allotted to them, type of taxonomic level of each question asked on the basis of verb use and percentage of question asked from area of importance.

Results: It was observed that 18.40% weightage of marks given to general pharmacology and least .67% for immunosuppressant in paper I whereas in paper II, 34.90% for antimicrobial agents. About 84% questions were asked from must know area, 8.07% from nice to know area and 7.90 from desirable to know area. In paper I, 92.08% of the questions were to test factual recall (Bloom level I), remaining 07.93% were reasoning type but in other paper verbs were used to test only lower cognitive domain.

Conclusions: All the sub-divisions of pharmacology were not covered in each theory assessment. Majority of questions were asked to test lower level of cognitive domain. Theory question papers should be designed to give proper weightage to whole subject area. Blue printing of theory question papers is absolutely necessary.


Keywords


Blue printing, Cognitive domain, Pharmacology, Question paper

Full Text:

PDF

References


Lorin W, David R. A taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York: Longman, 2001.

Bloom B, Englehart M, Furst E, Hill W, Krathwohl D: Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green; 1956.

Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ. 2004;38:974-9.

Ananthkrishan N, Sethuraman KR, Santosh K. Medical education-Principles and Practice. Pondicherry; Alumni Association of National Teacher Training Centre; 2000:117.

Miller GE. Educational strategic for the health professions. In: Development of educational programmes for the health professionals. WHO Public Health; 1973:52.

Buckwalter JA, Schumacher R, Albright JP, Cooper RR. Use of an educational taxonomy for evaluation of cognitive performance. J Med Educ. 1981;56(2):115- 21.

Narvekar RS, Bhandre NN, Bhandare PN. Analysis of undergraduate pharmacology question paper at Goa Medical College as regard to their content area. Int J Sci Rep. 2016;2(8):182-6.

Adkoli BV. Attributes of a good question paper. In: Sood R, chief editor. Assessment in medical education trends and tools. New Delhi: K. L. Wig Center for Medical Education and Technology; 1995:73-6.

Rohin G, Dhiraj S, Sushila S, Neha D. Analytical study of written examination papers of undergraduate anatomy: Focus on its content validity. IJBAMR. 2013;2(8):1110-6.

Ananthakrishnan N, Ananthakrishnan S, Oumachigui A. MBBS examinations are we asking the right questions. J Postgrad Med. 1993;39:31.

Sultana R, Shamim KM, Nahar L, Hasam F. Content Validity of Written Examination in Undergraduate Anatomy; Bangl J of Anat. 2009;7(1):14-8.

Rohin G, Dhiraj S, Sushila S, Neha D. Analytical study of written examination papers of undergraduate anatomy:Focus on its content validity. IJBAMR. 2013;2(8):1110-6.

Davis MH. Constructed response questions. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. Edinbergh: Churchill Livingstone; 2001:326-335.

MCI Minutes of Meeting available at http://www.mciindia.org/meetings/EC/2015/ECMN-02.03.2015.pdf

Feletti GI. Reliability and validity studies on modified essay questions. J Med Educ. 1980;55(11):933-41.

Patrick D. Bridge, Joseph M, Robert F, Thomas R, Shlomo S. Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations. Med Teach. 2003;25(4):414-21.