Do multiple true-false items beat the commonly used one-best-answers questions regarding to the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment? Results of a literature review

Background: Multiple True-False-Items (MTF-Items) might offer some advantages compared to one-best-answer-questions (TypeA) as they allow more than one correct answer and may better represent clinical decisions. However, in medical education assessment MTF-Items are seldom used. Summary of Work: With this literature review existing findings on MTF-items and on TypeA were compared along the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment, i.e. (1) reproducibility, (2) feasibility, (3) validity, (4) acceptance, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effects, and (7) equivalence. We conducted a literature research on ERIC and Google Scholar including papers from the years 1935 to 2014. We used the search terms “multiple true-false”, “true-false”, “true/false”, and “Kprim” combined with “exam”, “test”, and “assessment”. Summary of Results: We included 29 out of 33 studies. Four of them were carried out in the medical field Compared to TypeA, MTF-Items are associated with (1) higher reproducibility (2) lower feasibility (3) similar validity (4) higher acceptance (5) higher educational effect (6) no studies on catalytic effects or (7) equivalence. Discussion and Conclusions: While studies show overall good characteristics of MTF items according to the Ottawa criteria, this type of question seems to be rather seldom used. One reason might be the reported lower feasibility. Overall the literature base is still weak. Furthermore, only 14 % of literature is from the medical domain. Further studies to better understand the characteristics of MTF-Items in the medical domain are warranted. Take-home messages: Overall the literature base is weak and therefore further studies are needed. Existing studies show that: MTF-Items show higher reliability, acceptance and educational effect; MTF-Items are more difficult to produce

Associations among Nosema spp. fungi, Varroa destructor mites, and chemical treatments in honey bees, Apis mellifera

Nosema spp. and Varroa destructor are common parasites of honey bee colonies. Beekeepers routinely treat colonies with the fungicide fumagillin to control Nosema and an array of miticides to control V. destructor. Interactions between these parasites and chemical treatments are poorly understood. We allocated honey bee colonies to distinct chemical treatment regimes and monitored parasite intensities in the subsequent year. Infections of Nosema and infestations of V. destructor were positively correlated. Fumagillin was effective at mitigating Nosema intensities only over the short term, suggesting that biannual application is essential. V. destructor intensities were higher in colonies that had been previously treated with miticides, reasons for this warrant further investigation.