Computer-based summative assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-method comparison of key feature problems with case-based multiple choice questions

Background: It is yet unclear if there are differences between using electronic key feature problems (KFPs) or electronic case-based multiple choice questions (cbMCQ) for the assessment of clinical decision making. Summary of Work: Fifth year medical students were exposed to clerkships which ended with a summative exam. Assessment of knowledge per exam was done by 6-9 KFPs, 9-20 cbMCQ and 9-28 MC questions. Each KFP consisted of a case vignette and three key features (KF) using “long menu” as question format. We sought students’ perceptions of the KFPs and cbMCQs in focus groups (n of students=39). Furthermore statistical data of 11 exams (n of students=377) concerning the KFPs and (cb)MCQs were compared. Summary of Results: The analysis of the focus groups resulted in four themes reflecting students’ perceptions of KFPs and their comparison with (cb)MCQ: KFPs were perceived as (i) more realistic, (ii) more difficult, (iii) more motivating for the intense study of clinical reasoning than (cb)MCQ and (iv) showed an overall good acceptance when some preconditions are taken into account. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no difference in difficulty; however KFP showed a higher discrimination and reliability (G-coefficient) even when corrected for testing times. Correlation of the different exam parts was intermediate. Conclusions: Students perceived the KFPs as more motivating for the study of clinical reasoning. Statistically KFPs showed a higher discrimination and higher reliability than cbMCQs. Take-home messages: Including KFPs with long menu questions into summative clerkship exams seems to offer positive educational effects.