Computer Testing, Formative or Summative, and Proctoring: Does it Matter? Lessons Learned From the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine During the Corona Pandemic.

IF 3.5 2区医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2026-02-11 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pme.1771

Jan Hindrik Ravesloot, Jeroen Donkers, Ariadne A Meiboom, Alexandra M J Langers, Bram Jacobs, Rene Tio, Cees van der Vleuten, Andreas J A Bremers

{"title":"Computer Testing, Formative or Summative, and Proctoring: Does it Matter? Lessons Learned From the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine During the Corona Pandemic.","authors":"Jan Hindrik Ravesloot, Jeroen Donkers, Ariadne A Meiboom, Alexandra M J Langers, Bram Jacobs, Rene Tio, Cees van der Vleuten, Andreas J A Bremers","doi":"10.5334/pme.1771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant changes in the administration of the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of various test formats. This study explores the impact of transitioning from paper-based to computer-based testing, the shift from summative to formative testing, and the effectiveness of remote proctoring compared to live supervision.Methods: Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed.Results: Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions.Discussion: Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19-related circumstances.","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"15 1","pages":"122-133"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12904123/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1771","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant changes in the administration of the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of various test formats. This study explores the impact of transitioning from paper-based to computer-based testing, the shift from summative to formative testing, and the effectiveness of remote proctoring compared to live supervision.

Methods: Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed.

Results: Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions.

Discussion: Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19-related circumstances.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

计算机测试，形成性还是总结性，以及监考：重要吗？冠状病毒大流行期间荷兰大学间医学进展测试的经验教训。

导言：2019冠状病毒病大流行促使荷兰大学间医学进步测试的管理发生了重大变化，为调查各种测试形式的影响提供了独特的机会。本研究探讨了从纸本考试向计算机考试过渡的影响，从总结性考试向形成性考试的转变，以及远程监考与现场监督相比的有效性。方法：对来自五所医学院的10,000多名参与者的数据进行分析。结果：结果显示，学生的成绩在纸试和机试之间没有显著差异。此外，在防止不诚实行为方面，远程监督被证明与现场监督一样有效。在大多数学校，形成性测试的结果略好于总结性测试，尽管不同机构的效果有所不同。讨论：总体而言，我们的研究得出结论，计算机测试是纸质形式的可行替代方案，远程监考可以有效取代现场监考，至少在我们的环境和与covid -19相关的情况下是这样。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Perspectives on Medical Education Multiple-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

28 weeks

期刊介绍： Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.