Negative Marking and the Student Physician-A Descriptive Study of Nigerian Medical Schools

Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students f...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of medical education and curricular development Vol. 2016; no. 3
Main Authors Ndu, Ikenna Kingsley, Ekwochi, Uchenna, Di Osuorah, Chidiebere, Asinobi, Isaac Nwabueze, Nwaneri, Michael Osita, Uwaezuoke, Samuel Nkachukwu, Amadi, Ogechukwu Franscesca, Okeke, Ifeyinwa Bernadette, Chinawa, Josephat Maduabuchi, Orjioke, Casmir James Ginikanwa
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London, England SAGE Publishing 01.01.2016
SAGE Publications
Sage Publications Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2382-1205
2382-1205
DOI10.4137/JMECD.S40705

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method. Methods This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. Results Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ 2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method (P = 0.618). Conclusions In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students’ final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.
AbstractList Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method. Methods This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. Results Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ 2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method (P = 0.618). Conclusions In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students’ final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.
Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method. Methods This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. Results Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ 2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking ( P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method ( P = 0.618). Conclusions In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students’ final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.
There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method. This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ = 23.0, df = 1, = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking ( = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method ( = 0.618). In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students' final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.
There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method.BACKGROUNDThere is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method.This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables.METHODSThis was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables.Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method (P = 0.618).RESULTSInquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method (P = 0.618).In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students' final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.CONCLUSIONSIn the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students' final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge.
Author Uchenna Ekwochi
Chidiebere DI Osuorah
Isaac Nwabueze Asinobi
Casmir James Ginikanwa Orjioke
Ogechukwu Franscesca Amadi
Ikenna Kingsley Ndu
Samuel Nkachukwu Uwaezuoke
Josephat Maduabuchi Chinawa
Michael Osita Nwaneri
Ifeyinwa Bernadette Okeke
AuthorAffiliation 3 Omega Pediatrics, Roswell, Georgia, USA
1 Enugu State University Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Nigeria
4 University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria
2 Child Survival Unit, Medical Research Council UK, The Gambia Unit, Fajara, Gambia
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: 3 Omega Pediatrics, Roswell, Georgia, USA
– name: 2 Child Survival Unit, Medical Research Council UK, The Gambia Unit, Fajara, Gambia
– name: 4 University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria
– name: 1 Enugu State University Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Nigeria
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Ikenna Kingsley
  surname: Ndu
  fullname: Ndu, Ikenna Kingsley
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Uchenna
  surname: Ekwochi
  fullname: Ekwochi, Uchenna
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Chidiebere
  surname: Di Osuorah
  fullname: Di Osuorah, Chidiebere
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Isaac Nwabueze
  surname: Asinobi
  fullname: Asinobi, Isaac Nwabueze
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Michael Osita
  surname: Nwaneri
  fullname: Nwaneri, Michael Osita
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Samuel Nkachukwu
  surname: Uwaezuoke
  fullname: Uwaezuoke, Samuel Nkachukwu
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Ogechukwu Franscesca
  surname: Amadi
  fullname: Amadi, Ogechukwu Franscesca
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Ifeyinwa Bernadette
  surname: Okeke
  fullname: Okeke, Ifeyinwa Bernadette
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Josephat Maduabuchi
  surname: Chinawa
  fullname: Chinawa, Josephat Maduabuchi
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Casmir James Ginikanwa
  surname: Orjioke
  fullname: Orjioke, Casmir James Ginikanwa
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29349304$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp1ks1vEzEQxVeoiJbSG2e0EheQSPG3vZdKVVqgqClIgQsXy-ud3Ths1sHeVMp_jzcJpYnUky2_n59m3szL7KjzHWTZa4zOGaby49fJ9fjqfMqQRPxZdkKoIiNMED96dD_OzmKcI4SwoAwr9SI7JgVlBUXsJPt1B43p3T3kExN-u67JTVfl_Qzyab-qoOvz77N1dNaZbnSZX0G0wS03_KCvc1_nd66BkPR8ApWzps2nduZ9G19lz2vTRjjbnafZz0_XP8ZfRrffPt-ML29HlmHCR5ICcKwM5aYEZATjdZ36sRbVtpBgTaUqxARQxpVVVJaKW2ZZyaGSlFJBT7ObrW_lzVwvg1uYsNbeOL158KHRJvTOtqCVrK0UCid7wqwpykoKyRAHURUY14PXxdZruSoXUNkUQDDtnum-0rmZbvy95pIKIkgyeLczCP7PCmKvFy5aaFvTgV9FjQtVCCSlQAl9e4DO_Sp0KSpNGEFYIowH6s3jih5K-TfCBHzYAjb4GAPUDwhGelgSvVkSvV2ShJMD3Lo-bYAf-nHtU5_ebz9F08D_Mp9gdxG2roTQm2jSCGHhzF6KB6I12vqFFogg-hfY8eJE
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_edurev_2021_100409
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10459_023_10305_z
Cites_doi 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00583.x
10.1007/s11299-005-0001-z
10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00427.x
10.1108/17542411011081383
10.1016/S1322-7696(08)60478-3
10.1080/02602930701773091
10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00284.x
10.1111/j.1745-3984.1975.tb01003.x
10.1080/01421590802146018
10.1371/journal.pone.0055956
10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01291.x
10.1016/j.jmp.2010.06.001
10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00434.x
10.5688/ajpe766114
10.1002/bdm.417
10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.07.001
10.1186/1472-6920-9-32
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2016 SAGE Publications.
2016 SAGE Publications. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
the authors, publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Limited. 2016 Libertas Academica
Copyright_xml – notice: 2016 SAGE Publications.
– notice: 2016 SAGE Publications. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: the authors, publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Limited. 2016 Libertas Academica
DBID AFRWT
AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
0-V
3V.
7X7
7XB
88B
8FI
8FJ
8FK
ABUWG
AFKRA
ALSLI
AZQEC
BENPR
CCPQU
CJNVE
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
GNUQQ
K9.
M0P
M0S
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PKEHL
PQEDU
PQEST
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
Q9U
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.4137/JMECD.S40705
DatabaseName Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024
CrossRef
PubMed
ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Education Database (Alumni)
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
Social Science Premium Collection
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Community College
Education Collection
ProQuest Central Korea
Health Research Premium Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Central Student
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
Education Database
ProQuest Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic (New)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Education
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central Basic
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Education
ProQuest Central Student
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central Korea
ProQuest Central (New)
Social Science Premium Collection
Education Collection
ProQuest Central Basic
ProQuest Education Journals
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Hospital Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest Education Journals (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList

PubMed
Publicly Available Content Database
MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: AFRWT
  name: Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024
  url: http://journals.sagepub.com/
  sourceTypes: Publisher
– sequence: 4
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 2382-1205
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_87fc768107c24ca9bd767405e6d911f6
PMC5736262
29349304
10_4137_JMECD_S40705
10.4137_JMECD.S40705
oai_libertasacademica_com_6020
Genre Journal Article
GroupedDBID 0-V
0R
2E
2J
2M
2N
31R
31U
31X
31Z
54M
5VS
7X7
8FI
8FJ
AACTG
AAGMC
AAKGS
AAMXZ
AATBZ
AAUAS
ABJOC
ABQXT
ABUWG
ABVFX
ACARO
ACGFS
ACGZU
ACJTF
ACROE
ACSIQ
ACUAV
ACXKE
ACXMB
ADBBV
AECGH
AEDTQ
AEKYL
AEPTA
AEWDL
AFKRA
AFRWT
AGWFA
AJUZI
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALSLI
AMCVQ
AOIJS
ARYUH
ATKJL
AUTPY
AYAKG
AZQEC
B3H
B8R
B8Z
B94
BBRGL
BCNDV
BDDNI
BENPR
BKIIM
BSEHC
BWJAD
CJNVE
DB
DB0
DF.
DF0
DO-
DV7
DV9
DWQXO
EBS
EJD
FYUFA
GNUQQ
GROUPED_DOAJ
GROUPED_SAGE_PREMIER_JOURNAL_COLLECTION
HYE
IPNFZ
J8X
K.F
KQ8
M0P
O9-
OK1
PIMPY
Q7L
Q7U
Q83
RIG
ROL
RPM
SDB
SFC
SFK
SFT
SGO
SGR
SGV
SGZ
SHG
SNB
SPP
SPQ
SPV
STM
0R~
53G
AASGM
ADOGD
AFCOW
AFKRG
ALIPV
ARALO
BPHCQ
BVXVI
CCPQU
DC.
H13
HMCUK
M~E
PHGZM
PHGZT
PQEDU
PQQKQ
SAUOL
SCDPB
SCNPE
UKHRP
AAYXX
ACHEB
CITATION
AEWHI
NPM
3V.
7XB
8FK
K9.
PKEHL
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
Q9U
7X8
PUEGO
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c4125-73ee518a35abe0a645ff407cc0fc97ecad8d046e3458c837b85c4c4b5ed733363
IEDL.DBID AFRWT
ISSN 2382-1205
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:23:51 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:06:40 EDT 2025
Thu Sep 04 18:39:49 EDT 2025
Mon Jun 30 13:42:55 EDT 2025
Thu Jan 02 22:55:07 EST 2025
Tue Jul 01 05:24:22 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:54:31 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 17 22:27:00 EDT 2025
Thu Dec 16 16:54:49 EST 2021
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 3
Keywords South East Nigeria
multiple choice questions
negative marking
medical schools
Language English
License This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC -BY-NC 3.0 License.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4125-73ee518a35abe0a645ff407cc0fc97ecad8d046e3458c837b85c4c4b5ed733363
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/JMECD.S40705?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider
PMID 29349304
PQID 2420170110
PQPubID 4451105
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_87fc768107c24ca9bd767405e6d911f6
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5736262
proquest_miscellaneous_1989607760
proquest_journals_2420170110
pubmed_primary_29349304
crossref_primary_10_4137_JMECD_S40705
crossref_citationtrail_10_4137_JMECD_S40705
sage_journals_10_4137_JMECD_S40705
libertasacademia_primary_oai_libertasacademica_com_6020
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20160100
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2016-01-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 1
  year: 2016
  text: 20160100
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace London, England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: London, England
– name: United States
– name: Thousand Oaks
– name: Sage UK: London, England
PublicationTitle Journal of medical education and curricular development
PublicationTitleAlternate J Med Educ Curric Dev
PublicationYear 2016
Publisher SAGE Publishing
SAGE Publications
Sage Publications Ltd
Publisher_xml – name: SAGE Publishing
– name: SAGE Publications
– name: Sage Publications Ltd
References Kim, Patel, Uchizono, Beck 2012; 76
Duffield, Spencer 2002; 36
Karandikar 2010; 99
Tweed, Wilkinson 2009; 31
Ahmed, Michail 1993; 70
Kansup, Hakstian 1975; 12
Kelly, Dennick 2009; 9
Espinosa, Gardeazabal 2010; 4
Berbery-Meyer, Meyer, Flasher 2002; 15
Considine, Botti, Thomas 2005; 12
Budescu, Bar-Hillel 1993; 30
Lord 1975; 12
Frary 1988; 7
Hammond, McIndoe, Sansome, Spargo 1998; 53
Lesage, Valcke, Sabbe 2013; 39
Bond, Bodger, Skibinski 2013; 8
Maxfield, Shapiro, Gupta, Hass 2010; 25
Bar-Hillel, Budescu, Attali 2005; 4
Veloshki, Rabinowitz, Robeson 1993; 27
Goonewardene 1999; 32
Betts, Elder, Hartley, Trueman 2009; 34
Ng A.W.Y. (bibr25-JMECD.S40705) 2009
bibr10-JMECD.S40705
bibr29-JMECD.S40705
bibr12-JMECD.S40705
bibr20-JMECD.S40705
bibr9-JMECD.S40705
bibr23-JMECD.S40705
Ahmed M.E. (bibr17-JMECD.S40705) 1993; 70
bibr22-JMECD.S40705
Kansup W. (bibr21-JMECD.S40705) 1975; 12
bibr26-JMECD.S40705
bibr27-JMECD.S40705
bibr6-JMECD.S40705
bibr24-JMECD.S40705
bibr8-JMECD.S40705
bibr7-JMECD.S40705
bibr1-JMECD.S40705
Bloom B. (bibr4-JMECD.S40705) 1956
Goonewardene I.P. (bibr28-JMECD.S40705) 1999; 32
bibr5-JMECD.S40705
bibr31-JMECD.S40705
bibr30-JMECD.S40705
bibr2-JMECD.S40705
bibr3-JMECD.S40705
Choppin B.H. (bibr13-JMECD.S40705) 1988
bibr14-JMECD.S40705
Karandikar R.L. (bibr11-JMECD.S40705) 2010; 99
bibr15-JMECD.S40705
bibr18-JMECD.S40705
bibr19-JMECD.S40705
bibr16-JMECD.S40705
References_xml – volume: 99
  start-page: 1042
  issue: 8
  year: 2010
  end-page: 1045
  article-title: On multiple choice tests and negative marking.
  publication-title: Curr Sci.
– volume: 53
  start-page: 1105
  year: 1998
  end-page: 1108
  article-title: Multiple-choice examinations: adopting an evidence-based approach to exam technique.
  publication-title: Anaesthesia.
– volume: 32
  start-page: 35
  year: 1999
  end-page: 41
  article-title: A study of student perceptions towards the use of true/false type MCQs at undergraduate medical examinations with time course.
  publication-title: J Ceylon Coll Physicians.
– volume: 15
  start-page: 313
  year: 2002
  end-page: 327
  article-title: Prospect theory analysis of guessing in multiple choice tests.
  publication-title: J Behav Decis Mak.
– volume: 27
  start-page: 371
  year: 1993
  end-page: 375
  article-title: A solution to the cueing effects of multiple choice questions: the Un-Q format.
  publication-title: Med Educ.
– volume: 8
  start-page: e55956
  issue: 2
  year: 2013
  article-title: Negatively-marked MCQ assessments that reward partial knowledge do not introduce gender bias yet increase student performance and satisfaction and reduce anxiety.
  publication-title: PLoS One.
– volume: 7
  start-page: 33
  year: 1988
  end-page: 38
  article-title: Formula scoring of multiple-choice tests (correction for guessing).
  publication-title: Educ Measure.
– volume: 12
  start-page: 7
  year: 1975
  end-page: 12
  article-title: Formula scoring and number right scoring.
  publication-title: J Educ Measure.
– volume: 70
  start-page: 787
  issue: 12
  year: 1993
  end-page: 788
  article-title: Evaluation of different MCQ-scoring-system in a medical school.
  publication-title: East Afr Med J.
– volume: 36
  start-page: 879
  year: 2002
  end-page: 886
  article-title: A survey of medical students’ views about the purposes and fairness of assessment.
  publication-title: Med Educ.
– volume: 4
  start-page: 3
  year: 2005
  end-page: 12
  article-title: Scoring and keying multiple choice test: a case study in irrationality.
  publication-title: Mind Soc.
– volume: 25
  start-page: 586
  year: 2010
  end-page: 604
  article-title: Gender and risk: women, risk taking and risk aversion.
  publication-title: Gender Manage.
– volume: 34
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2009
  end-page: 15
  article-title: Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple-choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes?
  publication-title: Assess Eval Higher Educ.
– volume: 12
  start-page: 231
  issue: 5
  year: 1975
  end-page: 239
  article-title: A comparison of several methods of assessing partial knowledge in multiple choice tests: testing procedures.
  publication-title: J Educ Meas.
– volume: 9
  start-page: 32
  year: 2009
  article-title: Evidence of gender bias in True-False-Abstain medical examinations.
  publication-title: BMC Med Educ.
– volume: 12
  start-page: 19
  year: 2005
  end-page: 24
  article-title: Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education.
  publication-title: Collegian.
– volume: 31
  start-page: 51
  year: 2009
  end-page: 54
  article-title: A randomized controlled trial comparing instructions regarding unsafe response options in a MCQ examination.
  publication-title: Med Teach.
– volume: 30
  start-page: 277
  issue: 4
  year: 1993
  end-page: 291
  article-title: To guess or not to guess: a decision-theoretic view of formula scoring.
  publication-title: J Educ Meas.
– volume: 39
  start-page: 188
  year: 2013
  end-page: 193
  article-title: Scoring methods for multiple choice assessment in higher education—is it still a matter of number right scoring or negative marking?
  publication-title: Stud Educ Eval.
– volume: 4
  start-page: 415
  year: 2010
  end-page: 425
  article-title: Optimal correction for guessing in multiple-choice tests.
  publication-title: J Math Psychol.
– volume: 76
  start-page: 114
  issue: 6
  year: 2012
  article-title: Incorporation of bloom's taxonomy into multiple-choice examination questions for a pharmacotherapeutics course.
  publication-title: Am J Pharm Educ.
– ident: bibr16-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00583.x
– ident: bibr14-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1007/s11299-005-0001-z
– ident: bibr20-JMECD.S40705
– ident: bibr18-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00427.x
– volume: 12
  start-page: 231
  issue: 5
  year: 1975
  ident: bibr21-JMECD.S40705
  publication-title: J Educ Meas.
– ident: bibr29-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1108/17542411011081383
– ident: bibr1-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1016/S1322-7696(08)60478-3
– ident: bibr10-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1080/02602930701773091
– ident: bibr3-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00284.x
– ident: bibr6-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1975.tb01003.x
– ident: bibr15-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1080/01421590802146018
– ident: bibr31-JMECD.S40705
– start-page: 384
  volume-title: Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook.
  year: 1988
  ident: bibr13-JMECD.S40705
– ident: bibr26-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055956
– ident: bibr19-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01291.x
– ident: bibr8-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2010.06.001
– ident: bibr12-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00434.x
– ident: bibr5-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.5688/ajpe766114
– ident: bibr27-JMECD.S40705
– ident: bibr9-JMECD.S40705
– volume: 70
  start-page: 787
  issue: 12
  year: 1993
  ident: bibr17-JMECD.S40705
  publication-title: East Afr Med J.
– ident: bibr22-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1002/bdm.417
– ident: bibr7-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.07.001
– ident: bibr24-JMECD.S40705
  doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-32
– volume: 99
  start-page: 1042
  issue: 8
  year: 2010
  ident: bibr11-JMECD.S40705
  publication-title: Curr Sci.
– ident: bibr23-JMECD.S40705
– volume: 32
  start-page: 35
  year: 1999
  ident: bibr28-JMECD.S40705
  publication-title: J Ceylon Coll Physicians.
– ident: bibr30-JMECD.S40705
– ident: bibr2-JMECD.S40705
– volume-title: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.
  year: 1956
  ident: bibr4-JMECD.S40705
– start-page: 236
  volume-title: Transactions on Engineering Technologies.
  year: 2009
  ident: bibr25-JMECD.S40705
SSID ssj0001634188
Score 1.9368684
Snippet Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative...
There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in...
Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
sage
libertasacademia
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
SubjectTerms Gender Differences
Guessing (Tests)
Knowledge Level
Medical students
Methods
Multiple choice
Original Research
Statistical Analysis
Student Evaluation
Students
Test Reliability
Validity
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1fTxQxEJ8YHog8KAroKppq5Ims7F7bbfcREUJI7kKCJLyQpu12kYTsEQ9MfPM7-A39JM60e-cdYnzxZR-uk9t2_nRm2tnfALzz6Jasa6lUp7a5UCrk2uEjiCBd4Kq0lhLF4ag6PBVHZ_JsrtUX1YQleODEuB2tWq8INEv5gfC2dg3BzxQyVA3aaRvBttHnzSVT8XSlwt1Z61Tpjvu02jka7u99fH-C-Qt1qpvzQRGqfwUeJzRbO7GpLt3eF3L-WTk5V_4VPdLBKjzqQ0m2m5bwBB6E7iksD_vL8jU4H4WLCOvN6IMcdFHMdg3DgI-dJEBLdjw91vj5_Ue-yzAHTXvI10TyjY1bNrq8ICXtWH-lwxJu52QdTg_2P-0d5n03hdyLknrW8hBkqS2X1oXCVkK2LXLD-6L1tQq4at1gshy4kNpj2uq09MILJ0OjOOcV34ClbtyF58DqSitH4F4Bg5Fi0GrNS6-s56Uri6bhGWxP-Wt8DzVOHS-uDKYcJA0TpWGSNDLYmlFfJ4iNv9B9IFHNaAgYO_6A6mJ6dTH_UpcM1F1BL_zhnUFvDRq-qTCozmBzqg-mt_OJwQCHAIgwhsrgzWwYLZSuXWwXxrcTQ1VpFaEmIc2zpD6zV2KwJWpeCJzWgmItzGlxpLv8HFHApSIkoUEGb0kFf0_pPta9-B-sewkPcbH9-dMmLN18uQ2vMCK7ca-j8f0Cxdg0lQ
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– databaseName: ProQuest Central
  dbid: BENPR
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwEB7BVkJw4P0IFGQQnFBosrZj54TaslVVaVcVpVIvyHIcZ6mEktJtkbjxH_iH_BJmYu9utxQuq2g9ShzPeF6efAPw2qFZslVDpTqlTYVSPtUV_njhZeW5yq2lQHE8KXYPxd6RPIoJt1ksq5zrxF5R152jHPkGmhKCekFr9f7kW0pdo-h0NbbQuA5rqIK1HMDa1miy_3GZZSlQS2sdKt5RX6uNvfFo-8O7A4xjqGPdBVvUQ_bfgjsB1dbObKhPt1e5nn9XUF4oA-st085duB1dSrYZZOAeXPPtfbgxjofmD-DzxE97eG9GH-agqWK2rRk6fuwgAFuy_Xl64_fPX-kmw1g06JLvgeQH6xo2OZ6SsLYsHu2wgN85ewiHO6NP27tp7KqQOpFT71ruvcy15dJWPrOFkE2Dq-Fc1rhSeXxrXWPQ7LmQ2mH4WmnphBOV9LXinBf8EQzarvVPgJWFVhWBfHl0SrJhozXPnbKO51We1TVP4O18fY2LkOPU-eKrwdCDuGF6bpjAjQTeLKhPAtTGP-i2iFULGgLI7v_oTqcm7jejVeMUYa0pNxTOllVNqEWZ9EWN6r0pElCXGb1yw0uDzhoURlOgc53A-lweTNzvM7OUzgReLoZxp9Lxi219dz4zVJ1WEHoS0jwO4rN4JDpdouSZwGmtCNbKnFZH2uMvPRq4VIQoNEzgFYngckpXLd3T_8_9GdzEy5hhWofB2em5f44-11n1Im6sP_N1Lcw
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
Title Negative Marking and the Student Physician-A Descriptive Study of Nigerian Medical Schools
URI http://insights.sagepub.com/negative-marking-and-the-student-physiciana-descriptive-study-of-niger-article-a6020
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/JMECD.S40705
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29349304
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2420170110
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1989607760
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5736262
https://doaj.org/article/87fc768107c24ca9bd767405e6d911f6
Volume 2016
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lb9QwEB71ISE48H4EysogOKG0ydqOk-O27KqqtKuqD7EXZDmOsxTRLOruIvXGf-Af8kuYiZMt2xaJSyLFo8SxZzwPj78BeGdRLZm8pFSdzIRCKRemOV6ccDJ3XMXGkKM4HCX7p-JgLMdr8LU9C9OM4Gyb0qqwR_ViTdJN0WgScVx01c7BsL_3cfsYnZEIvfn5ufaR7ragBj2hrenFOe1qW8qFvAzbk23rsNlViUAJ2OwNjj6dXEVkElzR60KVqMao4kckfab8jU-u6LAa6v8ePPBouGZmfF67uc1kvZl5-Vf6WK3RBg_hfmOKsp7nnUew5qrHcGfYbLY_gc8jN6lhwRkd6EEVx0xVMDQY2bEHxGSHbVjk989fYY-hD-vXoB-e5JJNSzY6mxCTV6zZEmIe93P2FE4H_ZO9_bCpxhBaEVPNW-6cjFPDpcldZBIhyxJHw9qotJly-Ndpgc6240KmFt3ePJVWWJFLVyjOecKfwUY1rdwLYFmSqpzAwRwaM1G3TFMeW2Usj_M4KgoewId2fLVtoMqpYsY3jS4LzYauZ0P72Qjg_ZL6u4fo-AfdLk3VkoaAtesH04uJbuRUp6q0ijDalO0Ka7K8ILSjSLqkQLVQJgGo6xO98sJrjdZoZGCdoFEewFbLD7rlco0GEgEYoQ0WwJtlM0o4bduYyk0XM01ZbQmhLiHNc88-y0-isSYyHgns1gpjrfRptaU6-1KjiEtFSETdAN4SC1516bahe_k_RK_gLv5ME5_ago35xcK9RottnndgXY1VpxE4vO_2R4dHnTr-8Qf1DkSN
linkProvider SAGE Publications
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwEB6VVuJx4P0IFDCInqrQJHbi5IBQH1ttH7uqaCv1gozjOEsllC3dFtQb_4H_wY_ilzATJ7vdUrj1kkM8SizP2x5_A_DGoFvSeUmlOpn2hZTWT3N8WGHj3HIZak2JYq-fdPfF5kF8MAO_2rswVFbZ2sTaUBdDQ3vkS-hKCOoFvdX7o68-dY2i09W2hYYTiy179h1TttG7jTXk70IUrXf2Vrt-01XANyKk3q3c2jhMNY91bgOdiLgsMasxJihNJq3RRVpg0mi5iFOD6VuexkYYkce2kJzzhON3r8EchhkZatHcSqe_82Gyq5OgV0hTV2GP_kEubfY6q2tvd_EP1CHvnO-rWwTcgjsORVePtKuH15eFun9XbJ4rO6s94fpduN2EsGzZydw9mLHVfbjeaw7pH8DHvh3UcOKMLgKha2S6KhgGmmzXAWmynXY75fePn_4yw9zX2a5vjuSMDUvWPxyQclSsOUpiDi909BD2r2S9H8FsNazsE2BZksqcQMUsBkFBVKYpD43Uhod5GBQF92CxXV9lGohz6rTxRWGqQ9xQNTeU44YHC2PqIwft8Q-6FWLVmIYAuesXw-OBavRbpbI0krDdpImE0VleEEpSENukQHdSJh7Ii4ye-uCFQaMVCr9KMJj3YL6VB9XYl5GaaIMHr8bDaBnouEdXdng6UlQNlxBaE9I8duIz_iUGeSLjgcBpTQnW1JymR6rDzzX6eCwJwSjy4DWJ4GRKly3d0__P_SXc6O71ttX2Rn_rGdzE183u1jzMnhyf2ucY753kLxolY_DpqvX6D434ask
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1LT9wwEB5VIKH20PcjLbRu1Z6q0GRtx8lxeawo7a5QAZULsmzH2SJVWcRCpd76H_iH_JLOxNmFAJV6ySEeJY7nbU--AXjv0C0ZW1GpTmFioZSPc4sXL7y0nqvUGEoUh6Nsa19sH8iDK62-2hWcrlJZFc6oMdak3cdlRRqONld92h5urm-s7mIuQuili0IojgK92B98-753ucGSoYFu-k6iV6IGHokMhe83HtFxSQ1y_z14EMBtzdSEMnVzWwR6s5DySjVY46AGD-F-G1myfhCFR3DH149hadienT-Bw5EfNyjfjP7PQY_FTF0yjP_YbsC3ZDuzXY6LP-dxn2FKGkzKr0Dym00qNjoak8zWrD3hYQHGc_oU9gebe-tbcdtcIXYipRa23HuZ5oZLY31iMiGrClfDuaRyhfL41XmJubPnQuYOs1ibSyecsNKXinOe8WewUE9q_wJYkeXKEtaXx9gk6VV5zlOnjOOpTZOy5BF8nK2vdi3yODXA-KkxAyFu6IYbOnAjgg9z6uOAuPEPujVi1ZyGcLKbG5OTsW7VTueqcoog15TrCWcKWxJ4USJ9VqKVr7II1HVGdx54bdAZjfKoM4yxI1ieyYOeCa3GeIfwiDCkiuDtfBgVlk5hTO0nZ1NNRWoZgSghzfMgPvNXYuwlCp4InFZHsDpz6o7URz8aUHCpCFioF8E7EsHLKd22dC__h-gNLO1sDPTXz6Mvr-Aufle787QMC6cnZ34FY7FT-7rVur_ZMi-Q
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Negative+Marking+and+the+Student+Physician%E2%80%93-A+Descriptive+Study+of+Nigerian+Medical+Schools&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+medical+education+and+curricular+development&rft.au=Ndu%2C+Ikenna+Kingsley&rft.au=Ekwochi%2C+Uchenna&rft.au=Di+Osuorah%2C+Chidiebere&rft.au=Asinobi%2C+Isaac+Nwabueze&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.pub=SAGE+Publications&rft.issn=2382-1205&rft.eissn=2382-1205&rft.volume=3&rft_id=info:doi/10.4137%2FJMECD.S40705&rft.externalDocID=10.4137_JMECD.S40705
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2382-1205&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2382-1205&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2382-1205&client=summon