Multiple-Choice Tests: Objectivity or Delusion in Assessment? A Comparative Analysis from Romania and Moldova

Multiple-choice tests (MCTs) are widely used in student assessment due to their perceived objectivity, validity, and reliability. In the digital age, MCTs have become increasingly popular supported by platforms that enable automated grading and real-time feedback. While MCTs offer benefits such as quick grading, minimized evaluator bias, and large-scale scalability, their effectiveness in providing an accurate assessment of student learning, critical thinking, and deep conceptual understanding remains a matter of ongoing scholarly debate. Reliance on testing may result in the oversimplification of knowledge understanding, the encouragement of surface learning, and limitations in assessing higher-order cognitive skills, that raise essential questions about the pedagogical value of MCTs, particularly when used as the main tool for the evaluation of student achievements. The objectives of this paper are to identify the benefits and limitations of MCTs in Higher Education as described in literature and to compare the practices from Romania and Moldova, with a focus on validity, fairness, and impact on student learning outcomes. The study is based on qualitative data collected through surveys and interviews with higher education target representatives in both contexts. Findings highlight common concerns related to guessing the correct answers, the risk of teaching to the test, the misleading design of questions, and weak alignment between learning outcomes and assessment practices. The study suggests remediation of the identified problems by integrating MCTs within a broader, balanced assessment strategy aligned with the principles of constructive alignment to support students’ competence development.