Introduction:

the quality of higher education is guaranteed through the evaluation of teaching processes.

Objective:

to compare the quality of an assessment tool in two school years.

Methods:

an educational research in the evaluation field of Orthodontics subject, in the 4th year of the Dentistry career, from September 2015 to June 2017. Universe: 52 exams. The methodology for the quality of assessment tools was applied and they were compared with those of the previous year, at the University of Medical Sciences in Holguín, Cuba.

Results:

most of the educational goals were explored in 2015-16; in 2016-17, all of them. In the 2015-16 exams the topic with more items was #2, (23.3%), while in those of 2016-17 was #3, (20%). Items and time spent on each theme showed little correlation in 2015-16, with Spearman 0.39, in 2016-17 it was excellent, with Spearman 0.85.

There was no correlation between actual and expected items (Spearman 0.13) in 2015-16; in 2016-17 there was correlation with Spearman 0.95. Almost all the questions had an excellent power of discrimination in 2015-16; in 2016-17, all of them. The reliability of the exam was not acceptable in 2015-16, with Cronbach's alpha 0.48 - 0.59; in 2016-17 the values 0.60- 0.65, showed good reliability.

Conclusions:

the time fund did not correspond to the items of 2015-16, while in 2016-17, it did. In 2015-16 there was no correlation between the expected and actual degree of difficulty of the items, but in 2016-17 there was a correlation. Most of the themes were within easy and medium easy ranges in 2015-16; in 2016-17 the medium difficulty predominated. The questions had excellent discrimination power in both courses. Reliability was acceptable in 2016-17, but not in 2015-16.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )