Theory Papers for Postgraduate Examinations: Are they Utilized Optimally as an Assessment Method?

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: Theory papers have been the most commonly employed method to assess learning outcomes in medical education. In these papers, both recall abilities and higher-order cognitive functions need to be assessed giving proper weightage as per relevance. Hence it becomes necessary that valid assessment methods are employed to evaluate the required objectives/competencies. The objective of the study was to develop a method for analyzing postgraduate question papers of various specialties. Methodology: A rubric matrix was created with three broad objective criteria to assess framing and layout of the questions in each paper, analysis of different sets for same examination, and finally an overall assessment of all the papers for each subject. Results: A total of 28 specialty papers were available. A total number of papers analysed = 340. The overall mean score out of total 60 marks was 38.64 ± 4.5. It was seen that the majority (60%) of the departments have been graded as fair on analysis of the theory papers. None of the departments were graded as very good, while 7% of them were graded as good. Although a very minuscule percentage of the papers had grammatical errors and duplication of questions in the sets, only 57% of the departments had done a proper moderation and 21% had used higher domains of learning for assessment. Conclusion: Analysis of postgraduate question papers showed that the questions asked for postgraduates are more recall-based instead of higher taxonomy of cognitive domain.