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...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of medical education and curricular development Vol. 2016; no. 3 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London, England
SAGE Publishing
01.01.2016
SAGE Publications Sage Publications Ltd |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2382-1205 2382-1205 |
DOI | 10.4137/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 |