The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extended‐matching items: A practical alternative to free‐response questions
Abstract
This article describes an item format, termed extended matching, that is currently used for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Extended‐matching items are organized in sets that include several items with a single option list. In one common form of extended‐matching items, each item in a set describes a patient with the same chief complaint and requires the examinee to select the most likely diagnosis from a list of diagnoses associated with that chief complaint. This article outlines procedures for writing and reviewing these items, discusses the test development and psychometric advantages of the format, and reviews practical issues that arise in test administration and scoring. If items provide fairly detailed descriptions of patient situations and require examinees to make a diagnosis or specify the next step in patient care, the extended‐matching format can be used to challenge important clinical decision‐making skills. With its long option list, the format provides a good compromise between free‐response questions and traditional five‐option multiple‐choice items.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247
Test-enhanced learning in medical education
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x · Cited by 610
Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review
McCoubrie, P. (2004) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590400013495 · Cited by 313
Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses?
Schuwirth, L. W. T., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x · Cited by 309
Coderre, S. P., Harasym, P., Mandin, H., & Fick, G. (2004) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-4-23 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B.
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-115
- ISSN
- 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8015
- OpenAlex
- W2137582326
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extended‐matching items: A practical alternative to free‐response questions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10401339309539601
- The paper
- Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1993). Extended‐matching items: A practical alternative to free‐response questions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339309539601
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.