modified essay questions for medicine finals pdf

• All *HOT books 123sonography AAFP AAN AAO AAOS AAP ACC Accounts ACP AIUM All Medical Products AMA An Issue of Series Anatomy Anesthesiology APA ARRS ASM Press Audiology Available for Request Basic sciences Behavioral Science Benjamin Cummings Bentham Science Biochemistry Biology Biophysics BSAVA Cambridge University Press Cardiology Cardiotext Cengage Chemistry Chest Cleveland Clinic Clinical Publishing CME Videos COLLECTIONS College of American Pathologists Cram101 CRC Press Current Diagnosis & Treatment Demos Medical Dentistry Dermatology DocMedED DoctorsInTraining DrPodcast EDRA Elsevier Embryology Emergency Medicine Endocrinology ENT Epidemiology European Respiratory Society F.A. Davis Family Medicine Forensic Medicine FREE Download French Ebooks Gastroenterology General Internal Medicine General Surgery Genetics Geriatric Medicine German Ebooks Guilford Gulfcoast Ultrasound Institute Harvard Medicine Head and Neck Surgery Hematology Histology Immunology Infectious Disease Informa Healthcare Intensive Care Internal Medicine Italian Ebooks Jaypee John Libbey Jones and Bartlett Publishers Journals/Articles Kaplan Karger Laboratory Lavoisier Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Massage Therapy Mayo Clinic McGraw Hill Medical Assistants Medical Dictionary & Terminology MedMaster MedQuest MedStudy Meetings by Mail Microbiology Molecular Biology Mometrix Morton Publishing Company MRIonline Nephrology Netter Collection Neurology Neurosurgery New Releases Nova Science Publishers Nuclear Medicine Nursing Nutrition Oakstone Obstetrics & Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Orthopaedics & Trauma Osler Other Languages Other Publisher Other specialties Otolaryngology Oxford Handbook Collection Oxford University Press Pain Medicine Palliative Medicine PassMachine Pastest Pathology Pathophysiology Pearson Pediatric Surgery Pediatrics Pharmaceutical Press Pharmacology Physical Therapy Physics Physiology Plastic Surgery Plural Publishing PMPH Primary Care Medicine Psychiatrics Psychology Public Health Publisher QBank QMP Quintessence Radcliffe Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Routledge SAGE Scientific Research Scion Publishing Sinauer Singing Dragon Slack Incorporated Spanish Ebooks Sport Medicine Springer Springer Publishing Company Statistics Surgery Taylor & Francis tfm Publishing Ltd Thieme Thoracic & Vascular Surgery Toxicology Traditional Medicine Uncategorized Urology USCAP USMLE Collection Veterinary Medicine Videos/Audios W.H. Freeman Wiley - Blackwell World Scientific WW Norton Search for:

No products in the cart.

• Categories list

M(odified) E(ssay) Q(uestions) for Medicine Finals: With Solutions and Tips (Original PDF from Publisher)

$ 70.0 $ 6.1

Publisher PDF , File Size = 57.70 MB

• Description
• Reviews (0)

Product Title:  M(odified) E(ssay) Q(uestions) for Medicine Finals: With Solutions and Tips (Original PDF from Publisher)

Publisher PDF, File Size = 57.70 MB

Overview (Details, Topics and Speakers):

by Derrick Chen Wee Aw (Author, Editor), C Rajasoorya (Editor)

Product Details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ World Scientific Publishing (April 5, 2021)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 300 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 9811228558
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-9811228551
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 9789811228551
• eText ISBN: 9789811228575
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.41 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.81 x 9 inches

Delivery Method

the M(odified) E(ssay) Q(uestions) for Medicine Finals: With Solutions and Tips (Original PDF from Publisher) course/book will be provided for customer as download link. download link has NO Expiry and can be used anytime.

contact us to our email at [email protected] or fill in the form below:

Your message (optional)

There are no reviews yet.

Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review.

Related products

A Primer in Cartilage Repair and Joint Preservation of the Knee, 1st Edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

Atlas of Radiologic-Cytopathologic Correlations (Original PDF from Publisher)

Surgery at a Glance, 5th Edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

Percutaneous Approaches to Valvular Heart Disease, An Issue of Interventional Cardiology Clinics (The Clinics: Internal Medicine)

Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric, 6th Edition (Free Download)

Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine 7th Edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

Atlas of Nuclear Cardiology: Imaging Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease (Original PDF from Publisher)

Principles of Cardiovascular Radiology (Original PDF from Publisher)

AANA Advanced Arthroscopy: The Knee (Original PDF from Publisher)

Presentation, Imaging and Treatment of Common Musculoskeletal Conditions: MRI-Arthroscopy Correlation (Original PDF from Publisher)

Sports-Related Injuries of the Meniscus, An Issue of Clinics in Sports Medicine, 1st edition (The Clinics: Orthopedics)

AANA Advanced Arthroscopy: The Shoulder (Original PDF from Publisher)

Atlas of Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia, 2nd Edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

The Digestive System: Systems of the Body Series, 2nd edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

Atlas of Essential Procedures (Original PDF from Publisher)

Braunwald’s Heart Disease Review and Assessment, 9th Edition (Original PDF from Publisher)

Username or email address  *

Password  *

Remember me Log in

Lost your password?

Username  *

Email address  *

Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Health Sci (Qassim)
• v.5(1); 2011 Jan

Evaluation of Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) as a tool for Assessing the Cognitive Skills of Undergraduate Medical Students

Objectives:.

Developing and testing the cognitive skills and abstract thinking of undergraduate medical students are the main objectives of problem based learning. Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) may both be designed to test these skills. The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of both forms of questions in testing the different levels of the cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students and to detect any item writing flaws in the questions.

A total of 50 MEQs and 50 MCQs were evaluated. These questions were chosen randomly from various examinations given to different batches of undergraduate medical students taking course MED 411–412 at the Department of Medicine, Qassim University from the years 2005 to 2009. The effectiveness of the questions was determined by two assessors and was defined by the question’s ability to measure higher cognitive skills, as determined by modified Bloom’s taxonomy, and its quality as determined by the presence of item writing flaws. ‘SPSS15’ and ‘Medcalc’ programs were used to tabulate and analyze the data.

The percentage of questions testing the level III (problem solving) cognitive skills of the students was 40% for MEQs and 60% for the MCQs; the remaining questions merely assessed the recall and comprehension. No significant difference was found between MEQ and MCQ in relation to the type of questions (recall; comprehension or problem solving x 2 = 5.3, p = 0.07).The agreement between the two assessors was quite high in case of MCQ (kappa=0.609; SE 0.093; 95%CI 0.426 – 0.792) but lower in case of MEQ (kappa=0.195; SE 0.073; 95%CI 0.052 – 0.338). 16% of the MEQs and 12% of the MCQs had item writing flaws.

Conclusion:

A well constructed MCQ is superior to MEQ in testing the higher cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students in a problem based learning setup. Constructing an MEQ for assessing the cognitive skills of a student is not a simple task and is more frequently associated with item writing flaws.

Introduction

The evaluation of the competence of undergraduate medical students is a very critical task, as in the future, these ‘to be physicians’ have to cater with human lives. ( 1 )

At undergraduate level there are three domains of skills to be evaluated i.e. Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor. Cognitive domain can be evaluated ( 2 ) at different levels including Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Modified bloom’s taxonomy ( 3 ) identified three levels of cognitive domain. In medical education, the major emphasis is on developing and evaluating the level III or problem solving skills, as most of the physician’s time is spent in analyzing patient’s problems.

Proper cognitive assessment tools reward the students for their higher cognitive skills and abstract thinking. ( 4 ) There are various methods to assess the knowledge domain which include Free response examinations (Long Essay Questions, Short answer Questions, Modified Essay questions), Multiple choice questions, Key feature questions, Self-assessment and peer-assessment. Each of these methods has its pros and cons and is addressed to assess different levels of bloom’s taxonomy. No single method of evaluation is superior to other and probably a reliable and valid evaluation requires a combination of these methods. ( 1 , 4 )

The Multiple choice questions are very popular in evaluation of undergraduate medical students. They are reliable and valid; moreover they are easy to administer to a large number of students. Well constructed MCQs have a greater ability to test knowledge and factual recall but they are less powerful in assessing the problem solving skills of the students. A large proportion of curriculum can be tested in a single sitting. The scoring is very easy and reliable using computer software, but the construction of good MCQs is difficult and needs expertise. Generally MCQs stimulate students to make a superficial and exam oriented study. ( 5 , 6 )

Modified essay questions are short clinical scenarios followed by series of questions with a structured format for scoring. They primarily assess the student’s factual recall but they also assess cognitive skills such as organization of knowledge, reasoning and problem solving. They also address the writing skills and even ethical, social and moral issues and attitudes. MEQs are more flexible and their value is somewhere between essay type questions and MCQ. But they need to be carefully constructed with provision of model answers and training to avoid inter-rater variability. ( 7 , 8 )

In a bird’s eye view, examination and evaluation are a source of anxiety and stress for the undergraduate medical students, but in reality it directs the students to study harder and improve their skills. Therefore, it is imperative not only to stimulate their cognitive skills during the teaching but also to frequently examine their higher mental and reasoning skills. ( 9 , 10 , 11 )

Our objectives were

• To compare MCQ and MEQ in their ability to test different levels of the cognitive domain
• To detect item writing flaws in construction of a question

Material and methods

Study design:.

Cross-sectional survey

50 MCQs and 50 MEQs were chosen randomly from the written examinations delivered to fourth year medical students attending undergraduate internal medicine course at the Department of Medicine, Qassim University. In the 50 MEQs, there were 104 stems. Questions were analyzed individually by two independent assessors as per the ‘preformed criteria’ to label a question with Level I, II or III of the cognitive domain. Questions belonged to various final and midterm examination from 2005 to 2009.

Ethical approval:

No ethical approval was required as no human subjects were involved in the research

Assessment:

Each question was analyzed separately to

Level I Knowledge (recall of information including direct questions asking to check the factual recall, containing words like enumerate; list etc.). Level II Comprehension and application (ability to interpret data; questions including lab data or containing words like analyze). Level III Problem – solving (Use of knowledge and understanding in new circumstances, including scenario based questions which contain case description and lab data asking students to initially make a diagnosis and then to suggest next appropriate investigation; management modalities; counseling etc)

Following were regarded as item writing flaws

• Error in formatting, spelling, grammar
• Technical errors
• Double negatives
• Cascading stems
• Absolute options
• Ambiguous stems
• Repetition of information

The analysis was done by each assessor as per the Performa shown in table (1) .

MCQ /MEQ evaluation form.

Statistical analysis:

Software ‘SPSS 15’ was used for data entry, analysis and interpretation. Kappa test was used to determine the agreement between the two assessors using ‘Med Calc’ software.

Total of 50 questions with 104 stems were included. Analysis is shown in table (2) .

Classification of Questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy.

Total of 50 questions were evaluated. Analysis is shown in table (2) .

Questions were representing different disciplines of Medicine ( graph 1 ). No significant difference was found between MEQ and MCQ in relation to the type of questions (recall; comprehension or problem solving ( x 2 = 5.3, p = 0.07).

The analysis of item writing flaws is shown in table (3) .

illustrates the item flaws of both MEQs and MCQs.

The results of this study show that Multiple choice question is a better test of cognitive skills than the Modified essay question as 60% of the MCQs tested the higher cognitive skills and only 40% of MEQs addressed the cognitive level III of modified Bloom’s taxonomy.

Although when the proportions of the two forms of questions addressing the different levels of cognitive domain were compared, there was no significant statistical difference among the level of cognition tested, as p-value was 0.07. It is also inferred that constructing an MEQ might be technically more difficult than an MCQ as item-writing flaws in MEQs were 16% as compared to MCQ only 12%.

The results of our study are consistent with Edward JP et al 12 who also found MCQ to be superior in testing the level 3 of cognitive domain. The results do not coincide with those of Irwin WG et al 13 who found MEQ to be superior in testing the highest level cognitive skills but they did not choose the questions randomly rather they compared the whole examination papers of various years. They suggest that both MCQ and MEQ may be designed beforehand to test any particular level of Bloom’s taxonomy. Construction of MEQ needs expertise and training, model answers of such questions need meticulous consideration. ( 14 , 15 )

It also seems that some specialty examiners tend to put more stress on Level III testing or it is easier to design such questions for some specialties as most of level III questions in both MCQ and MEQ belonged to cardiology.

It is quite understandable that conduction of a proper assessment is not only dependent on the cognitive aspect of question, but there are so many factors which play a role like, reliability, content and construction validity, financial and human resources.

At the department of Medicine all the questions are constructed by the faculty members then these are put forward to a ‘question review committee’ and after its approval the questions are introduced into the question bank. It was observed during the period of the study that the content and the construction of the questions improved over the years but still individual errors occurred.

The two confounders that played a major role in deciding the level of cognitive domain addressed by each specific type of question were (i) The type of examination to which the question belonged i.e. Midterm or Final (ii) The specialty of the question like cardiology, neurology etc. It may be inferred that in final exams the examiners tend to put the type of questions that address the highest level of cognitive domain (level III) as 80 % of MCQs belonged to the final exams while all MEQs were taken from the Midterm exam papers. This may be one drawback of our study. The total number of questions from which the sample was taken was quite limited which accounts for the small sample size in this study but as more and more questions will be incorporated into the question bank of the department further validation studies will be required.

MCQs were found to be testing the level III of cognitive domain more frequently than MEQs. Training in formulating MCQs and MEQs, more so for MEQs is needed to assure achieving level III of cognitive domain and avoid item writing flaws.

• New customer? Start here.

View Cart (0)

Your cart is empty.

• Top  >
• English Books

M(odified) E(ssay) Q(uestions) for Medicine Finals: with Solutions and Tips, Volume 2 [Paperback]

by Aw, Derrick Chen Wee (EDT) / Khoo, Chin Meng (EDT)

There is a paucity of high-value examination-style questions for final-year medical undergraduates. This book uses true (and modified) clinical scenarios (for realism), appropriate and pragmatic clinical questions (for clinical reasoning), and provides readers with explanations and tips in solutions (for self-reflection). The good reception received from Vol. 1 is the main stimulus for this Vol. 2.The book will useful for:

• S$65.28 Online Price
• S$58.75 Kinokuniya Privilege Card Member Price
• Availability Status : Available for order from suppliers.
• Usually dispatches around 3 to 4 weeks.
• Retail store and online prices may vary.
• Delivery time required depends on your selected option .
• ADD TO CART

Add to Wishlist

domestic delivery FREE Shipping on orders over S$50.00

N.B. While every attempt has been made to ensure stock availability, occasionally we do run out of stock at our stores.

STORE STOCK STATUS Out of Stock

See below for nearest stores with available stock.

To confirm availability and pricing, please call the store directly.

Singapore Main store

Bugis store

• Look for similar books
• Health & Well-Being
• Health & Medicine

Added To Cart

Description, table of contents, top sellers in the same category.

• Ikigai : The Japa...
• by Garcia, Hector / Miralles, Francesc
• S$26.16 Online Price
• S$23.54 KPC Member Price

• by García, Héctor / Miralles, Francesc / Miralles, Francesc

• The Plant Medicin...
• by Siff, William
• S$61.04 Online Price
• S$54.94 KPC Member Price

• 4 Weeks to Better...
• by Mosley, Dr Michael
• S$29.70 Online Price
• S$26.73 KPC Member Price

• The Busy Brain Cu...
• by Mushtaq, Dr Romie
• S$36.95 Online Price
• S$33.25 KPC Member Price

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Evaluation of Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) as a tool for Assessing the Cognitive Skills of Undergraduate Medical Students

Objectives: Developing and testing the cognitive skills and abstract thinking of undergraduate medical students are the main objectives of problem based learning. Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) may both be designed to test these skills. The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of both forms of questions in testing the different levels of the cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students and to detect any item writing flaws in the questions. Methods: A total of 50 MEQs and 50 MCQs were evaluated. These questions were chosen randomly from various examinations given to different batches of undergraduate medical students taking course MED 411-412 at the Department of Medicine, Qassim University from the years 2005 to 2009. The effectiveness of the questions was determined by two assessors and was defined by the question's ability to measure higher cognitive skills, as determined by modified Bloom's taxonomy, and its quality as determined by the presence of item writing flaws. 'SPSS15' and 'Medcalc' programs were used to tabulate and analyze the data. Results: The percentage of questions testing the level III (problem solving) cognitive skills of the students was 40% for MEQs and 60% for the MCQs; the remaining questions merely assessed the recall and comprehension. No significant difference was found between MEQ and MCQ in relation to the type of questions (recall; comprehension or problem solving x 2 = 5.3, p = 0.07).The agreement between the two assessors was quite high in case of MCQ (kappa=0.609; SE 0.093; 95%CI 0.426-0.792) but lower in case of MEQ (kappa=0.195; SE 0.073; 95%CI 0.052-0.338). 16% of the MEQs and 12% of the MCQs had item writing flaws. Conclusion: A well constructed MCQ is superior to MEQ in testing the higher cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students in a problem based learning setup. Constructing an MEQ for assessing the cognitive skills of a student is not a simple task and is more frequently associated with item writing flaws.

Related Papers

Strides in Devlopment of Medical Education

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement of students' ability to answer consecutive patient management problem (PMP) and modified essay question (MEQ) exams, to assess its relationship with academic progress, and to determine whether consecutive PMP-MEQ exams can improve the students' clinical reasoning skills by improving the test scores. Methods: This descriptive, analytical, cross-sectional study consisted of 67 third-year nutrition students in three consecutive years, who were asked to prepare for a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test and consecutive PMP-MEQ exams. The students were required to answer PMP-MEQ exam, which comprised of two queries of five-choice question (PMP) and three short-answer questions (MEQ). Repeated measures ANOVA, independent t-test, paired t-test, and Pearson's correlation test were used for statistical analysis. Results: The mean difference in PMP scores was significant between the three periods (P = 0.0001). However, the difference in the mean score of PMP exam between students with grade point average (GPA) ≥ 16 and GPA < 16 was not significant, except for PMP3 (P = 0.001). An increase was observed in the scores of students in both groups by continuous PMP examination. The significant mean difference in PMP3 exam showed that improvement of students with GPA ≥ 16 was greater than that of students with GPA < 16 (P = 0.001). The difference in the mean scores of MCQ and PMP exams was significant, except for the third PMP exam in students with GPA ≥ 16 (P = 0.143). Conclusions: Use of PMP-MEQ exams in reasoning-based clinical education can be a suitable approach for clinical evaluation of undergraduate students. Also, continuous PMP-MEQ examination can improve the clinical reasoning of students, mainly those with GPA ≥ 16. 1. Background Effective clinical reasoning depends on the health pro-fessional's ability to collect and analyze the right cues or information to reach an accurate understanding of a patient problem or differential diagnosis, to plan and implement the right interventions, and finally to learn from the process (1, 2). Reasoning-and competency-based medical education requires a robust and multi-dimensional assessment system (3). It relies on continuous, inclusive, and elaborate assessment and feedback systems, which facilitate the development of reasoning and competence (4). On the other hand, in most countries, a multiple choice question (MCQ) is the most common assessment method of medical knowledge, followed by modified essay question (MEQ) (5). MCQ does not focus on the evaluation of cognitive skills, and many MCQs assess small sections of textbooks. With the introduction of problem-based learning for the evaluation of clinical reasoning and competence in medical and health professional courses, besides the shift from a traditional lecture-based curriculum to a student-centered one, many schools are currently reviewing their assessment tools and introducing new strategies for evaluating the student (6). In a study, two popular formats of tests, i.e., MCQ and MEQ, were compared. Based on their findings, although MCQ and MEQ may assess different skills, there is a very strong relationship between their content scores (7). In another study, the results of MEQ and MCQ were strongly and positively correlated, and the overall examination showed good reliability and validity. In their study, MEQ included more questions on recall of knowledge, which were more

Sri Lanka Journal of Medicine

Deepthi Edussuriya

International journal of Educational & Psychological Researches

Aim: Assessment is a very important component of the medical course curriculum. Item analysis is the process of collecting, summarizing, and using information from student's responses to assess the quality of multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Difficulty index (P) and discrimination index (D) are the parameters used to evaluate the standard of MCQs. The aim of the study was to assess quality of MCQs. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Pathology. One hundred and twenty, 2nd year MBBS students took the MCQs test comprising 40 questions. There was no negative marking and evaluation was done out of 40 marks, and 50% score was the passing mark. Postvalidation of the paper was done by item analysis. Each item was analyzed for difficulty index, discrimination index, and distractor effectiveness. The relationship between them for each item was determined by Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS 20.0. Results: Difficulty index of 34 (85%) items was in the acceptable range (P = 30–70%), 2 (5%) item was too easy (P >70%), and 4 (10%) items were too difficult (P <30%). Discrimination index of 24 (60%) items was excellent (D >0.4), 4 (10%) items were good (D =0.3–0.39), 6 (15%) items were acceptable (D =0.2–0.29), and 6 (15%) items were poor (D < 0–0.19). A total 40 items had 120 distractors. Amongst these, 6 (5%) were nonfunctional distracters, 114 (95%) were functional distracters. The discrimination index exhibited positive correlation with difficulty index (r = 0.563, P = 0.010, significant at 0.01 level [two-tailed]). The maximum discrimination (D = 0.5–0.6) was observed in acceptable range (P = 30–70%). Conclusion: In this study, the majority of items fulfilled the criteria of acceptable difficulty and good discrimination. Moderately easy/difficult had the maximal discriminative ability. Very difficult item displayed poor discrimination, but the very easy item had high discrimination index, indicating a faulty item, or incorrect keys. The results of this study would initiate a change in the way MCQ test items are selected for any examination, and there should be proper assessment strategy as part of the curriculum development.

International Journal of Medical Research and Review

siddharth banode

Pak J Med Sci

DR MUKHTIAR BAIG , Nighat Huda , Sobia Ali

Objectives: To evaluate Multiple Choice and Short Essay Question items in Basic Medical Sciences by determining item writing flaws (IWFs) of MCQs along with cognitive level of each item in both methods. Methods: This analytical study evaluated the quality of the assessment tools used for the first batch in a newly established medical college in Karachi, Pakistan. First and sixth module assessment tools in Biochemistry during 2009-2010 were analyzed. Cognitive level of MCQs and SEQs, were noted and MCQ item writing flaws were also evaluated. Results: A total of 36 SEQs and 150 MCQs of four items were analyzed. The cognitive level of 83.33% of SEQs was at recall level while remaining 16.67% were assessing interpretation of data. Seventy six percent of the MCQs were at recall level while remaining 24% were at the interpretation. Regarding IWFs, 69 IWFs were found in 150 MCQs. The commonest among them were implausible distracters (30.43%), unfocused stem (27.54%) and unnecessary information in the stem (24.64%). Conclusion: There is a need to review the quality including the content of assessment tools. A structured faculty development program is recommended for developing improved assessment tools that align with learning outcomes and measure competency of medical students.

International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health

Abhijeet Ingale

Background: Item analysis is the process of collecting, summarizing and using information from students’ response to assess the quality of test items. However it is said that MCQs emphasize recall of factual information rather than conceptual understanding and interpretation of concepts. There is more to writing good MCQs than writing good questions. The objectives of the study was to assess the item and test quality of multiple choice questions and to deal with the learning difficulties of students, identify the low achievers in the test. Methods: The hundred MBBS students from Government medical college were examined. A test comprising of thirty MCQs was administered. All items were analysed for Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency. Data entered in MS Excel 2007 and SPSS 21 analysed with statistical test of significance. Results: Majority 80% items difficulty index is within acceptable range. 63% items showed excellent discrimination Index. Distractor e...

INTED Proceedings

Dr Jorge Reyna

For decades, medical education has used Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) in undergraduate, postgraduate, and specialist training programs. With the development of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in the early 1990s, educators adapted paper-based MCQs for formative and summative assessments. Technology allowed automated feedback, question shuffling, instant marking, and 'branching' based on student responses. With the advent of e-learning authoring tools in the early 2000s, it became possible to create interactive online tests with images, animations, videos, drag-anddrop elements, blanks to fill in, and hotspots. Effective MCQ writing involves understanding educational concepts like learning taxonomies, constructive alignment, approaches to learning, cognitive load, and student motivation to learn. It is also essential when structuring a question to avoid ambiguity and to have the imagination to write MCQs that measure application of knowledge. Whether a basic or advanced topic, it is possible to design MCQs that measure higher-order thinking that require the student to apply their knowledge rather than simply recalling it. MCQs with hypothetical scenarios can measure higher-order thinking and promote deep learning. However, preparing the students for this type of examination is essential to enhance their learning experience. This article discusses the theoretical considerations involved in writing MCQs for medical education which encourage deep learning and improve the student learning experience.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SCIENCE AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH

Arijit Datta

ABSTRACT Introduction: Assessments direct students towards learning. There are three types of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. While all three are interlinked, the cognitive domain, which covers knowledge and intellectuality, is foundational and can be assessed through theory examinations. Theory exams are the best way to test the cognitive domain of a learner, while practical exams can assess the psychomotor and affective domains. Since the question paper is the most important tool in theory exams, it is essential that the question paper covers relevant topics and tests all levels of cognitive learning, which encompass knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Aim: To assess the level of cognitive domains assessed and the weightage allocated to various topics in the undergraduate summative examination question paper of community medicine. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Department of Community Medicine, Pramukh Swami Medical College and Sri Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat, India in which the five-year question papers (2016-2020) from five Universities were analysed to assess the level of cognitive domains and the weightage assigned to various topics. Each question was categorised as recall, comprehension, or application based on the cognitive domain it assessed. Furthermore, each question was analysed to determine the topic it pertained to, and the marks allocated to that question were assigned to the corresponding topic. Results: The majority of marks in Universities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were, respectively allocated as follows: 324 (80.62%), 459 (84.66%), 453 (75.5%), 895 (89.5%), and 379 (63.16%) for questions testing the recall ability of the learners. For questions assessing comprehension ability, the marks allotted were 20 (4.87%), 0, 81 (13.5%), 65 (6.5%), and 51 (8.15%). The fewest marks were assigned to questions testing application, synthesis, or evaluation abilities. Epidemiology had the highest weightage in all five Universities, with marks of 73 (18.25%), 75 (13.89%), 93 (15.5%), 141 (14.1%), and 83 (13.83%). Conclusion: The cognitive domains assessed in the subject across all five Universities were unsatisfactory. The weightage of marks allotted to topics varied, highlighting the need to develop a question paper plan that facilitates a systematic distribution based on different levels of cognitive domains and topics.

BMC Medical Education

Edward Palmer

THE PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL JOURNAL

Sohaib Yousaf

RELATED PAPERS

Mariano Esteban

Gilberto Hernández-Pérez

indra kasih

Rukiye DÖĞER ASLAN

Vst - Vie Sociale Et Traitements

Françoise Boudreault

Weining Zhen

Sean McMinn

Salvatore Amaduzzi

B. Kuzmanovska

LITERATURAS REGIONALES: NARRATIVA HUARACINA RECIENTE

Jorge Jorge

Perspectivas Sociais

NILSON BINDA

European journal of dentistry

Pantelis Kouros

lilik rita lindayani

Andres Kuusk

Jurnal Penelitian &amp; Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika

Journal of Community Positive Practices

Stefan Cojocaru

Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences

Pavan Kumar

Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores

Fabian Espinales

Genome Announcements

Chrystala Constantinidou

DergiPark (Istanbul University)

Ali Serhat ERSOYOĞLU

办英国诺丁汉大学毕业证书 制作诺丁汉大学文凭学历证书

Springer eBooks

Ladan Tahvildari

John Posnett

Applied Physics Letters

Shingo Katsumoto

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Assessment of Higher Ordered Thinking in Medical Education: Multiple Choice Questions and Modified Essay Questions

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended.

Background: Multiple choice questions and Modified Essay Questions are two widely used methods of assessment in medical education. There is a lack of substantial evidence whether both forms of questions can assess higher ordered thinking or not.

Objective: The objective of this paper is to assess the ability of a well-constructed Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) to assess higher ordered thinking skills as compared to a Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) in medical education.

Methods: The medical education literature was searched for articles related to comparison between multiple choice questions and modified essay questions, looking for credible evidence for using multiple choice questions for assessment of higher ordered thinking.

Results and Conclusion : A well-structured MCQ has the capacity to assess higher ordered thinking and because of many other advantages that this format offers. Multiple choice questions should be considered as a preferable choice in undergraduate medical education as literature shows that different levels of Bloom's taxonomy can be assessed by this assessment format and its use for assessing only lower ordered thinking i.e. recall of knowledge, is not very convincing.

multiple choice questions, modified essay questions, assessment higher ordered thinking

Introduction

What is Higher ordered thinking?

Higher ordered thinking is usually defined in reference to the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy ( Fig I ). First two levels, which are considered as lower ordered thinking, include remembering and understanding whereas rest of the four levels, constituting higher ordered thinking, include application, analysis, evaluation, and creation of knowledge in an ascending order ( Anderson, Lorin, Krathwohll, & Bloom., 2001 ).

Figure 1. Levels of thinking in revised Bloom's Taxonomy.

Bloom’s taxonomy to revised bloom’s taxonomy.

Bloom’s Taxonomy described and published in 1956 had permeated teaching for almost 45 years before it was modified in 2001. In Table 1 , these existing taxonomies of cognition are discussed.

Table 1. Comparison between Bloom's and revised Bloom's Taxonomy

Mcqs and meq in medical education.

There has been a considerable revision in undergraduate medical curriculum particularly in the assessment and teaching methodology. Written tests are an essential component of medical education. Objectivity is gradually replacing subjective assessment. Long essay type questions have been substituted by MEQs and MCQs. There is an ongoing debate on which assessment format should be administered to test higher ordered thinking ( Mehta, Bhandari, Sharma, & Kaur, 2016 ).

Assessment formats are mere tools and their usefulness can be hampered by their poor design, proficiency of its user, deliberate abuse and unintentional misuse (Tom Kubiszyn, 2013 ). To establish usefulness of a particular assessment format, the following five criteria should be considered: (1) reliability (2) validity (3) influence on future thinking and practice (4) suitability to learners and teachers (5) expenses (to the individual student and institution) ( Vleuten, 1996 ). Reliability is the degree to which a measurement produces consistent results ( Salkind, 2006 ) and validity means that how well the test measures which it intends to measure ( American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014 ).

MCQs are extensively used for assessment in medical education owing to their ability to offer a broad range of examination items that incorporate several subject areas. They can be managed in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, they can be marked by a machine which makes the examination standardized ( Epstein, 2007 ). There is a general perception that MCQs emphasize on knowledge recall i.e. Level I of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and MEQs are capable of testing higher ordered thinking. The criticism against MCQs is basically due to its poor construction rather than the format itself. A study reveals that in assessing cognitive skills, MCQs significantly correlate with MEQs when their assessment’s content is matched ( Palmer & Devitt, 2007 ).

The modified essay question is a compromise between an essay and a multiple-choice question. Although it is well documented that a well-constructed MEQ tests higher ordered thinking, it is appropriate to ask if MEQs in undergraduate medical education are well-constructed and test higher ordered thinking. Mostly MEQs only test factual knowledge i.e. lower ordered thinking and at the same time risk significant variation in standards of marking as they are usually hand-marked ( Palmer & Devitt, 2007 ), rendering it unreasonable as an assessment format for testing a large number of students ( Sam, Hameed, Harris, & Meeran, 2016 ). Besides, it is a difficult task to construct an MEQ capable of testing higher ordered thinking in students and is more frequently associated with item writing flaws ( Khan & Aljarallah, 2011 ).

In contrast to MEQ, MCQs are suitable for testing a large number of students as they are machine scored ( Morrison & Walsh Free, 2001 ). Research shows that multiple choice questions assessing comprehension, application and analysis have been identified. This suggests that the ability of MCQs to assess higher ordered thinking is persistently undervalued and indicates that MCQs have the potential to assess higher ordered thinking ( Scully, 2017 ). Examples of multiple choice question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. application ( Table 2 ), analysis ( Table 3 ) and evaluation levels ( Table 4 , 5 and 6 ) are as follows:

Table 2. Example of Multiple Choice Question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. Level III “Application” (Case & Swansin, 2002)

Table 3. example of multiple choice question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. level iv “analysis” (oermann & gaberson, 2009), table 4. example of multiple choice question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. level v “evaluation” (touchie, 2010), table 5. example of multiple choice question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. level v “evaluation” (touchie, 2010), table 6. example of multiple choice question assessing higher ordered thinking i.e. level iv “evaluation” (collins, 2006).

For a number of purposes, the significance of measuring higher ordered thinking is well renowned in medical education. It has been debated that multiple choice format is useful because it is reliable, objective, unbiased and efficient, cost-effective in nature but incapable of measuring higher ordered thinking. This is not true. A more correct declaration would be that MCQs measuring higher ordered thinking are rarely constructed and MCQs assessing lower ordered thinking are over-presented. One of the reasons of this over presentation is that the most item writers are not formally trained. This emphasizes that format itself is not limited to the assessment of lower ordered thinking. In undergraduate medical education, a well-constructed MCQ can easily assess a student’s ability to apply, evaluate and judge medical education knowledge ( Vanderbilt, Feldman, & Wood, 2013 ). Nevertheless, writing MCQs capable of assessing higher ordered thinking are challenging ( Bridge, Musial, Frank, Thomas, & Sawilowsky, 2003 ) but can be developed by following certain guidelines, especially ensuring that item writers are competent in their fields ( Haladyna, & Downing, 2006 ).

Scully (2017) invalidated the perception that MCQs can only assess lower ordered thinking and Palmer EJ and Devitt ( 2007) illustrated that the percentage of question testing lower ordered thinking is same in both MCQs and MEQs. It also shows that a well-constructed MCQ is a better tool to assess higher ordered thinking in medical students than an MEQ ( Palmer & Devitt, 2007 ). There is nothing innate in the MCQ assessment format which prevents testing of higher-ordered thinking ( Norcini, Swanson, Grosso, Shea, & Webster, 1984 ). Besides, medical schools are training their faculty members to develop multiple-choice questions which ensure assessment of higher ordered thinking of their students. ( Vanderbilt et al., 2013 ).

The higher ordered thinking in undergraduate medical students can be better assessed through well-constructed multiple-choice questions as compared to modified essay questions. Therefore, well-constructed MCQS should be considered a reasonable substitute for MEQs because of a variety of other advantages it provides over MEQs.

Take Home Messages

A well-constructed MCQS should be considered a reasonable substitute for MEQs because of a variety of other advantages it provides over MEQs.

Notes On Contributors

Dr. Arslaan Javaeed is an assistant professor of Pathology in Poonch Medical College, Rawalakot, Pakistan and is doing his masters in Health Profession Education from Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Declarations

The author has declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Dr. Katherine Moreau for her guidance at every step of this review article.

Bibliography/References

•   American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC: AERA
•   Anderson L. W., Krathwohl D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.New York: Longman.
•   Bloom B. S., Engelhart M. D.; Committee of College and University Examiners. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.London: Longmans.
•   Bridge P. D., Musial J., Frank R., Thomas R., Sawilowsky S. (2003). Measurement practices: Methods for developing content-valid student examinations.Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159031000100337
•   Case S. M., Swanson D. B. (2002). Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences.Director. 27 (21), 112.
•   Collins J. (2006). Writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.RadioGraphics. 26 (2), 543–551. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.262055145
•   Epstein R. M. (2007). Medical education - Assessment in medical education.New England Journal of Medicine. 356 (4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054784
•   Khan Z., Aljarallah B. M. (2011). Evaluation of modified essay questions and multiple choice questions as a tool for assessing the cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students.International Journal of Health Sciences. 5 (1), 39–43.
•   Mehta B., Bhandari B., Sharma P., Kaur R. (2016). Short answer open-ended versus multiple-choice questions : A comparison of objectivity. 52 (3), 173–182.
•   Morrison S., Walsh Free K. W. (2001). Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking.The Journal of Nursing Education. 40 (1), 17–24.
•   Norcini J. J., Swanson D. B., Grosso L. J., Shea J. a, Webster G. D. (1984). A comparison of knowledge, synthesis, and clinical judgment.Multiple-choice questions in the assessment of physician competence. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 7 , 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327878400700409
•   Oermann M. H., Gaberson K. B. (2009). Evaluation and testing in nursing education.New York, Springer.
•   Palmer E. J., Devitt P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper.BMC Medical Education. 7 (1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-49
•   Čapek Radan, Peter McLeod C. C., B. J. R. (2005). Do accompanying clinical vignettes Improve student scores on multiple choice questions testing factual knowledge?Medical Science Educator. 20 (2), 110–119.
•   Salkind N. J. (2006). In Tests & measurement for people who (think they) hate tests & measurement.Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
•   Sam A. H., Hameed S., Harris J., Meeran K. (2016). Validity of very short answer versus single best answer questions for undergraduate assessment.BMC Medical Education. 16 (1), 266. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0793-z
•   Scully D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 22 (4), 1–13.
•   Haladyna T. M., Downing S. M. (2006). Handbook of test development.Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.
•   Tiemeier A. M., Stacy Z. A., Burke J. M. (2011). Innovations in pharmacy using multiple choice questions written at various Bloom’s Taxonomy levels to evaluate student performance across a therapeutics sequence.INNOVATIONS. 2 (2).
•   Kubiszyn T., Borich G. D. (2013). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice.New York, NY: Wiley.
•   Touchie C. (2010). Medical Council of Canada Guidelines for the Development of Multiple-Choice Questions.
•   Vanderbilt A. A., Feldman M., Wood I. K. (2013). Assessment in undergraduate medical education: a review of course exams.Medical Education Online. 18 (1), 20438. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20438
•   Vleuten C. Van Der. (1996). The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications.Advances in Health Sciences Education. 1 , 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596229

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open peer review.

This review has been migrated. The reviewer awarded 4 stars out of 5

This interesting article is about assessing the ability of a well-constructed Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) to assess higher order thinking skills as compared to a Modified Essay Questions (MEQ) in medical education. This has been done by the author by searching and analyzing the medical education literature available. The author has compared MEQ and MCQ with suitable Examples of multiple choice questions assessing higher order thinking i.e. application, analysis and evaluation levels. The author concludes that well-constructed MCQs should be considered as a reasonable substitute for MEQs because of a variety of advantages it provides over MEQs. But the real challenge lies in constructing MCQs appropriately that can assess the higher order thinking skills truly and effectively. This paper will be useful for all medical educators, who are involved in Evaluation and Assessment.

Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

• Respond or Comment
• COMMENT ON THIS REPORT

I enjoyed reading this paper. It is an interesting paper which is in favor of multiple choice questions over modified essay questions. I agree with authors it is required to see how well constructed is the assessment rather than the format of the assessment. As long as the assessments fulfill the important traits like Validity, Reliability, feasibility, educational effect, and catalytic effect, they are good practices. Validity can be determined by the Miller's pyramid, the content of the exam, and mapping with learning objectives. It is known that MCQs are clearly helpful in assessing application and analysis levels. But it is interesting to see that MCQs can be used to assess evaluation level too. This paper is good for faculty members, academic administrators, and assessment committees.

The author discusses an important point in this article. He describes how a well-constructed multiple choice question (MCQ) can test higher-order skills. The author has provided some examples of MCQs testing higher order skills and has described both the original Bloom’s taxonomy and its recent revision. The article could be further strengthened by the author providing tips to construct MCQs testing higher order skills. In offshore Caribbean medical schools MCQs are widely used for assessment and are modeled after the United States Medical Licensing exam (USMLE) pattern. A problem is MCQs are the predominant method of assessment and other methods are not widely used. Many of these schools concentrate on preparing students for success in the USMLE which predominantly uses single response MCQs. MCQs are objective, unbiased and can be evaluated by machine and are widely used in various licensing and other high stakes exams. All medical educators will find this article to be of interest.

This review has been migrated. The reviewer awarded 5 stars out of 5

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this research article. Mostly multiple choice questions are used to assess factual knowledge only and this article indicates need of wellconstructed mcqs for their proper usage.

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Reviewer Reports

• Tayyaba Khan , PMC
• P Ravi Shankar , American International Medical University
• Sateesh Babu Arja , Avalon University School of Medicine
• sathyanarayanan varadarajan , SRM Medical College, SRM University

Comments on this article

All Comments (0)

Competing Interests Policy

Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:

• Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
• You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
• You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
• You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
• You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
• You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
• You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.

Stay Updated

Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles

Register with MedEdPublish

Already registered? Sign in

Not now, thanks

Stay Informed

Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from MedEdPublish.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to MedEdPublish

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Finished Papers

How It Works

Can you write essays for free.

Sometimes our managers receive ambiguous questions from the site. At first, we did not know how to correctly respond to such requests, but we are progressing every day, so we have improved our support service. Our consultants will competently answer strange suggestions and recommend a different way to solve the problem.

The question of whether we can write a text for the user for free no longer surprises anyone from the team. For those who still do not know the answer, read the description of the online platform in more detail.

We love our job very much and are ready to write essays even for free. We want to help people and make their lives better, but if the team does not receive money, then their life will become very bad. Each work must be paid and specialists from the team also want to receive remuneration for their work. For our clients, we have created the most affordable prices so that a student can afford this service. But we cannot be left completely without a salary, because every author has needs for food, housing and recreation.

We hope that you will understand us and agree to such working conditions, and if not, then there are other agencies on the Internet that you can ask for such an option.

Johan Wideroos

• Human Resource
• Business Strategy
• Operations Management
• Project Management
• Business Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Scholarship Essay
• Narrative Essay
• Descriptive Essay
• Buy Essay Online
• College Essay Help
• Help To Write Essay Online

Is essay writing service legal?

Essay writing services are legal if the company has passed a number of necessary checks and is licensed. This area is well developed and regularly monitored by serious services. If a private person offers you his help for a monetary reward, then we would recommend you to refuse his offer. A reliable essay writing service will always include terms of service on their website. The terms of use describe the clauses that customers must agree to before using a product or service. The best online essay services have large groups of authors with diverse backgrounds. They can complete any type of homework or coursework, regardless of field of study, complexity, and urgency.

When you contact the company Essayswriting, the support service immediately explains the terms of cooperation to you. You can control the work of writers at all levels, so you don't have to worry about the result. To be sure of the correctness of the choice, the site contains reviews from those people who have already used the services.

Is essay writing service legal?

Essay writing services are legal if the company has passed a number of necessary checks and is licensed. This area is well developed and regularly monitored by serious services. If a private person offers you his help for a monetary reward, then we would recommend you to refuse his offer. A reliable essay writing service will always include terms of service on their website. The terms of use describe the clauses that customers must agree to before using a product or service. The best online essay services have large groups of authors with diverse backgrounds. They can complete any type of homework or coursework, regardless of field of study, complexity, and urgency.

When you contact the company Essayswriting, the support service immediately explains the terms of cooperation to you. You can control the work of writers at all levels, so you don't have to worry about the result. To be sure of the correctness of the choice, the site contains reviews from those people who have already used the services.

PenMyPaper: a student-friendly essay writing website

We, at PenMyPaper, are resolute in delivering you professional assistance to write any kind of academic work. Be it marketing, business, or healthcare sector, we can prepare every kind of draft efficiently, meeting all the points of the question brief. Also, we believe in 'research before drafting'. Any work without ample research and evidence will be a flawed one and thus we aim to make your drafts flawless with exclusive data and statistics. With us, you can simply relax while we do the hard work for you.

Customer Reviews

The writers of PenMyPaper establish the importance of reflective writing by explaining its pros and cons precisely to the readers. They tend to ‘do my essay’ by adding value to both you (enhancing your knowledge) and your paper.

1(888)499-5521

1(888)814-4206

Customer Reviews

Finished Papers