Testing that Makes You Think: Development of a Basic Science Test to Promote Future Clinical Learning

Abstract Introduction Testing prior knowledge has been found to enhance learning new, related information. In this paper, we report on the development of a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test of basic science knowledge designed to elicit a particular kind of cognitive processing—distinctive processing—that, we argue, may be beneficial to future learning and clinical reasoning. Distinctive processing entails noticing both similarities and differences among concepts or entities. The recruitment and distinctive processing of prior basic science knowledge may optimally prepare learners to understand, remember and apply new, related clinical information. Methods We developed two versions of a 19-item basic science MCQ. Both versions of the test had identical stems and correct response options; one version had very similar, plausible or “competitive” incorrect response options while the other version had less similar or “non-competitive” incorrect response options. We hypothesized that the “competitive” test version would elicit more distinctive processing than the “non-competitive” version. We conducted a concurrent verbal protocol to assess the response processes elicited by the two different test versions. Results We found that the MCQ items designed with competitive or plausible incorrect answer options elicited more distinctive processing than MCQ items with less competitive or less plausible incorrect response options. Discussion We showed that tests can be designed to promote cognitive processes that may be beneficial for future learning and that concurrent verbal protocols can be used to collect response process validity evidence for formative tests.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical Science Educator
Published
2026-03-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-026-02677-9
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Testing that Makes You Think: Development of a Basic Science Test to Promote Future Clinical Learning

Nicole N. Woods, Sally Binks, Vyshnave Jeyabalan, Kulamakan Kulasegaram et al.
Medical Science Educator
Memory Processes and Influences
article

Testing that Makes You Think: Development of a Basic Science Test to Promote Future Clinical Learning

Nicole N. Woods, Sally Binks, Vyshnave Jeyabalan, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Jaimie Coleman, Ryan Brydges
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Testing prior knowledge has been found to enhance learning new, related information. In this paper, we report on the development of a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test of basic science knowledge designed to elicit a particular kind of cognitive processing—distinctive processing—that, we argue, may be beneficial to future learning and clinical reasoning. Distinctive processing entails noticing both similarities and differences among concepts or entities. The recruitment and distinctive processing of prior basic science knowledge may optimally prepare learners to understand, remember and apply new, related clinical information. Methods We developed two versions of a 19-item basic science MCQ. Both versions of the test had identical stems and correct response options; one version had very similar, plausible or “competitive” incorrect response options while the other version had less similar or “non-competitive” incorrect response options. We hypothesized that the “competitive” test version would elicit more distinctive processing than the “non-competitive” version. We conducted a concurrent verbal protocol to assess the response processes elicited by the two different test versions. Results We found that the MCQ items designed with competitive or plausible incorrect answer options elicited more distinctive processing than MCQ items with less competitive or less plausible incorrect response options. Discussion We showed that tests can be designed to promote cognitive processes that may be beneficial for future learning and that concurrent verbal protocols can be used to collect response process validity evidence for formative tests.

Medical Science Educator
University Health Network (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.