Indian Journal of Pharmacology Home 

BOOK REVIEW
[Download PDF]
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 368-

Book Review

CH Shashindran 
 Head of the Department, Department of Pharmacology, JIPMER, Pondicherry, India

Correspondence Address:
C H Shashindran
Head of the Department, Department of Pharmacology, JIPMER, Pondicherry
India




How to cite this article:
Shashindran C H. Book Review.Indian J Pharmacol 2004;36:368-368


How to cite this URL:
Shashindran C H. Book Review. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2022 May 17 ];36:368-368
Available from: https://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2004/36/6/368/13508


Full Text

MCQ's IN PHARMACOLOGY with brief explanatory note for correct answer by Chandrakanta Chouhan. Published by AITBS Publishers & Distributors (Regd.), Delhi, India. First Edition, 2004. ISBN 81-7473-253-5. Pages 306. (Price: Rs. 150/-).

This book as the author claims in the preface is meant for MBBS and BDS students. The author says that she has tried to meet the recommendations of the Medical Council of India by emphasizing the area of rational therapeutics. One very important feature of this book is that after each chapter there is an explanatory note as to why a particular option is the right answer to an item. While the students may find it helpful in satisfying their curiosity, it is no substitute for going through the standard text books for meaningful learning and the development of critical reasoning. The book as a whole is laudable attempt at bringing out a collection of MCQ's. However there have been several pitfalls in the construction and format of several items. To cite a few, in several of the items the stem does not go grammatically with the options. Several of the items have clues. MCQs as we know is an instrument for measuring knowledge. However, the presence of clues in the items tend to bring down validity of the instrument and helps the not so well prepared learners in guessing the correct option. Certain items have distracters which are not plausible thereby decreasing the efficacy. A distracter to be termed effective should attract at least 5% of the examinees. Non-plausible distracters are unlikely to achieve this. It is hoped that the author will take steps to avoid these shortcomings in the 2nd edition of this otherwise very useful book meant for undergraduate medical students.