This paper presents the results of an ongoing investigation that focuses on assessing the adequacy of project documentation through an identified taxonomic structure relating numerous documentation characteristics. Previous research in this area has been limited to the study of isolated characteristics of documentation and English prose, without considering the collective contributions of such characteristics. The research described in this paper takes those characteristics, adds others, and establishes a well‐defined approach to assessing the ‘adequacy’ of software documentation. The identification of document quality indicators (DQIs) provide the basis for the assessment procedure. DQIs are hierarchically defined in terms of document qualities, factors that refine qualities and quantifiers that provide for the measurement of factors.

This paper presents case study results of a research effort funded by the Naval Surface Warfare Systems (NSWC) at Dahlgren, Virginia. The investigation focuses on assessing the adequacy of project documentation based on an identified taxonomic structure relating documentation characteristics. Previous research in this area has been limited to the study of isolated characteristics of documentation and English prose, without considering the collective contributions of such characteristics. The research described in this paper takes those characteristics, adds others, and establishes a well-defined approach to assessing the "goodness" of software documentation. The identification of Document Quality Indicators (DQIs) provide the basis for the assessment procedure. DQIs are hierarchically defined in terms of document Qualities, Factors that refine Qualities and Quantifiers that provide for the measurement of Factors.

Background Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model designed to categorize course learning objectives based on the complexity of learning associated with the task. Little is known about performance and abilities of entry‐level allied health students related to Bloom’s Taxonomy within anatomy education. Objective The objective of this assessment was to use exam reviews from 2018’s PAS 501 Applied Anatomy course to re‐create exam items at higher levels of Bloom’s learning. Cohort performance at the “Remembering” level of Bloom’s was compared to 2019 reconstructed questions to determine if graduate‐level PA students are most capable of memorizing anatomy or interpreting more detailed applications. Methods Four “Remembering” questions were selected from the 2018 PAS 501 Abdomen written exam. The regional concepts in these questions were reframed in clinical scenarios and questions where regional anatomy needed to be applied at higher levels of thinking. Statistics of cohort performance in the form of the DI, PBC and the DisI were used to compare the lower‐ and higher‐level Bloom’s questions Results Two questions reframed as clinical scenarios and demonstrated decreases in the DI and an increase in the PBC. Two questions were initially written as basic definition questions and reconstructed to represent a discussion of regional anatomy that required the student to understand and reinterpret the information. One of these questions displayed an increase in the DI and the PBC. Conclusions Higher level Bloom’s questions framed as clinical scenarios (N=2) displayed noted increases in the PBC implying these questions are quality discriminators for students who do well overall and those who do not. Reframing “Remembering,” definition questions to “Understanding” level questions may increase item success for clinically‐minded graduate‐level students. Additional work is required to draw meaningful conclusions from this pilot data. Support or Funding Information N/A