Evaluating the Efficacy of Formative MCQs on Student Learning Outcomes in Cardiovascular System Biochemistry

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56580/GEOMEDI79

Keywords:

formative assessment, multiple-choice questions, MCQs, medical education, cardiovascular biochemistry, student engagement, self-assessment, clinical reasoning, exam preparedness

Abstract

Medical students often have problems with the application of abstract biochemical concepts to clinical practice, and this problem is especially evident in complex modules such as cardiovascular system biochemistry. Formative multiple-choice questions (MCQs) have shown promise in bridging this gap; however, limited research exists on their integration into cardiovascular biochemistry curricula. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of weekly formative MCQs on student engagement, self-assessment, critical thinking, and exam preparedness in a cardiovascular biochemistry module. A prospective, single-cohort educational study was conducted during a 7 week cardiovascular biochemistry module at University Geomedi, Tbilisi, Georgia. Participants were 120 second year medical students who completed weekly formative MCQs designed to emphasise clinical application across seven topics. After the module and final examination, students completed an anonymous 12 item questionnaire comprising 10 quantitative Likert-scale items and two open ended questions. The response rate was 100%. Mean scores were high across all domains: engagement (4.77/5), learning and self assessment (4.66/5), critical thinking (4.58/5), exam preparedness (4.43/5), and overall satisfaction (4.52/5). The highest "Strongly Agree" ratings were obtained for engagement (Question 1, 85.8%), knowledge gap identification (Question 3, 81.7%), and motivation to attend seminars (Question 2, 71.7%). Disagreement rates were minimal (0–2.5% across items). Qualitative thematic analysis revealed four dominant advantages: self assessment and knowledge gap identification, readiness for exams, clinical reasoning and application, and engagement with active participation. Minor challenges included requests for more clinically complex questions, occasional time constraints, and public participation anxiety for a small number of students. This study demonstrates that weekly formative MCQs in cardiovascular biochemistry are highly accepted by medical students and perceived to enhance engagement, self directed learning, clinical reasoning, and exam preparedness while reducing exam anxiety. Future research should correlate MCQ performance with final exam scores and assess long term knowledge retention.

 

References

Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Medical Teacher. 2015;37(4):312-322. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.970998

Fulton TB, Collins S, Van Der Schaaf M, O’Brien BC. Connecting Biochemistry Knowledge to Patient Care in the Clinical Workplace: Senior Medical Students’ Perceptions about Facilitators and Barriers. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2023;35(4):398-410. doi:10.1080/10401334.2022.2084400

Bryan C, Bryan C, Clegg K, eds. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. 0 ed. Routledge; 2006. doi:10.4324/9780203969670

Aldosari MS. From Recall to Resilience: Reforming Assessment Practices in Saudi Theory-Based Higher Education to Advance Vision 2030. Sustainability. 2025;17(21):9415. doi:10.3390/su17219415

Lipnevich AA, Mattern K, Feddock C. Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189. Medical Teacher. 2026;48(6):921-940. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2025.2569623

Lei W, Lei Z. Formative assessment literacy: a systematic review. Lang Test Asia. 2025;16(1):7. doi:10.1186/s40468-025-00418-0

Steele S, Nayak N, Mohamed Y, Panigrahi D. The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review. AMEP. 2025;Volume 16:1331-1340. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S513119

Reid M, French M, Andreopoulos S, Wong C, Kee N. AI-generated multiple-choice questions in health science education: Stakeholder perspectives and implementation considerations. Current Research in Physiology. 2025;8:100160. doi:10.1016/j.crphys.2025.100160

Javaeed A. Assessment of Higher Ordered Thinking in Medical Education: Multiple Choice Questions and Modified Essay Questions. MedEdPublish. 2018;7:128. doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000128.1

Panchbudhe S, Shaikh S, Swami H, et al. Efficacy of Google Form–based MCQ tests for formative assessment in medical biochemistry education. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2024;13(1). doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_981_23

Schwartzman WE, Paul SN, Amsterdam C, et al. A Novel, Mutually Beneficial Student-Faculty Partnership to Develop Real-Time Formative Assessments Aligning With the Preclinical Undergraduate Medical Curriculum. Academic Medicine. 2025;100(1):33-37. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005801

Weiss JN, Yang L, Qu Z. Thematic review series: Systems Biology Approaches to Metabolic and Cardiovascular Disorders. Network perspectives of cardiovascular metabolism. Journal of Lipid Research. 2006;47(11):2355-2366. doi:10.1194/jlr.R600023-JLR200

Sharif A, Kasemy Z, Aloshari S. Assessment as Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study on Pre-Clinical Medical Student-Led Generation of Scenario-Based Multiple Choice Questions. AMEP. 2025;Volume 16:1847-1859. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S549385

Appelhaus S, Werner S, Grosse P, Kämmer JE. Feedback, fairness, and validity: effects of disclosing and reusing multiple-choice questions in medical schools. Medical Education Online. 2023;28(1):2143298. doi:10.1080/10872981.2022.2143298

Kaminski JJ, Franz A, Holzhausen Y, Wedenig HH, Sporn F, Peters H. Establishing TELLme – an online platform for self-directed, formative assessment of knowledge acquisition across an undergraduate medical curriculum. Medical Teacher. 2025;47(4):696-704. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362896

Downloads

Published

2026-06-09

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

1.
Botchkova E, Mittova V, Motsonelidze C, Tsertsvadze M. Evaluating the Efficacy of Formative MCQs on Student Learning Outcomes in Cardiovascular System Biochemistry. MIMM. 2026;31(1):37-48. doi:10.56580/GEOMEDI79

Most read articles by the same author(s)