Medical school assessments should foster the development of higher-order thinking skills to support clinical reasoning and a solid foundation of knowledge. Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to assess student learning, and well-written MCQs can support learner engagement in higher levels of cognitive reasoning such as application or synthesis of knowledge. Bloom's taxonomy has been used to identify MCQs that assess students' critical thinking skills, with evidence suggesting that higher-order MCQs support a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific process skills. Similarly, clinical practice also requires learners to develop higher-order thinking skills that include all of Bloom's levels. Faculty question writers and examinees may approach the same material differently based on varying levels of knowledge and expertise, and these differences can influence the cognitive levels being measured by MCQs. Consequently, faculty question writers may perceive that certain MCQs require higher-order thinking skills to process the question, whereas examinees may only need to employ lower-order thinking skills to render a correct response. Likewise, seemingly lower-order questions may actually require higher-order thinking skills to respond correctly. In this Perspective, the authors describe some of the cognitive processes examinees use to respond to MCQs. The authors propose that various factors affect both the question writer and examinee's interaction with test material and subsequent cognitive processes necessary to answer a question.

Background: Teaching students how to create assessments, such as those involving multiplechoice questions (MCQs), has the potential to be a useful active learning strategy. In order to optimize students' learning, it is essential to understand how they engage with such activities. Objective: To explore medical students' perceptions of how completing rigorous MCQ training and subsequently writing MCQs affects their learning. Design: In this mixed methods exploratory qualitative study, eighteen second-year medical students, trained in MCQ-writing best practices, collaboratively generated a question bank. Subsequently, the authors conducted focus groups with eight students to probe impressions of the process and the effect on learning. Responses partially informed a survey consisting of open-ended and Likert rating scale questions that the remaining ten students completed. Focus group and survey data from the eighteen participants were iteratively coded and categorized into themes related to perceptions of training and of collaborative MCQ writing. Results: Medical students felt that training in MCQ construction affected their appreciation for MCQ examinations and their test-taking strategy. They perceived that writing MCQs required more problem-solving and content-integration compared to their preferred study strategies. Specifically, generating plausible distractors required the most critical reasoning to make subtle distinctions between diagnoses and treatments. Additionally, collaborating with other students was beneficial in providing exposure to different learning and questionwriting approaches. Conclusions: Completing MCQ-writing training increases appreciation for MCQ assessments. Writing MCQs requires medical students to make conceptual connections, distinguish between diagnostic and therapeutic options, and learn from colleagues, but requires extensive time and knowledge base.