比较 MCQ、扩展匹配问题 (EMQ) 和脚本一致性测试 (SCT) 对一年级医学生的评估 - 一项试点研究。

IF 1.4 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Journal of Education and Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-02-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jehp.jehp_839_23
Y C Nalini, Shivashakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai
{"title":"比较 MCQ、扩展匹配问题 (EMQ) 和脚本一致性测试 (SCT) 对一年级医学生的评估 - 一项试点研究。","authors":"Y C Nalini, Shivashakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai","doi":"10.4103/jehp.jehp_839_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-best response types of MCQs are commonly used tools in medical assessment. However, these are not particularly apt for the assessment of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) among students. Assessment of HOTS and clinical reasoning skills requires unexplored tools like extended matching questions (EMQs) and SCTs. The aim is to assess HOTS and clinical reasoning skills during formative assessment among medical students post a simulation-based education (SBE) using EMQ and SCT on the topic of shock and collect student perceptions regarding new assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods and material: </strong>The research is an observational descriptive study. Fifty-two first-year medical students were asked to take a formative assessment consisting of 20 MCQs, 6 EMQs, and 2 SCT post a SBE during July 2022 on the topic of shock. MCQs were categorized into themes of aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of shock. These categorized MCQs were compared and analyzed with EMQs and SCTs prepared on the same themes. The data analysis by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the difference in per cent mean scores of MCQ with EMQ and MCQ with SCT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean scores and also under the theme of aetiology and management, the student's score in MCQ were higher than EMQ and SCT and the difference was statistically significant with the <i>P</i> value (≤0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Students scored better in familiar assessment tools like MCQ, but majority of the students were of the opinion that EMQ tested the delivered content better and SCT tested the clinical application better.</p>","PeriodicalId":15581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10977632/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between MCQ, Extended matching questions (EMQ) and Script concordance test (SCT) for assessment among first-year medical students - A pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Y C Nalini, Shivashakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jehp.jehp_839_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-best response types of MCQs are commonly used tools in medical assessment. However, these are not particularly apt for the assessment of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) among students. Assessment of HOTS and clinical reasoning skills requires unexplored tools like extended matching questions (EMQs) and SCTs. The aim is to assess HOTS and clinical reasoning skills during formative assessment among medical students post a simulation-based education (SBE) using EMQ and SCT on the topic of shock and collect student perceptions regarding new assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods and material: </strong>The research is an observational descriptive study. Fifty-two first-year medical students were asked to take a formative assessment consisting of 20 MCQs, 6 EMQs, and 2 SCT post a SBE during July 2022 on the topic of shock. MCQs were categorized into themes of aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of shock. These categorized MCQs were compared and analyzed with EMQs and SCTs prepared on the same themes. The data analysis by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the difference in per cent mean scores of MCQ with EMQ and MCQ with SCT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall mean scores and also under the theme of aetiology and management, the student's score in MCQ were higher than EMQ and SCT and the difference was statistically significant with the <i>P</i> value (≤0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Students scored better in familiar assessment tools like MCQ, but majority of the students were of the opinion that EMQ tested the delivered content better and SCT tested the clinical application better.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Education and Health Promotion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10977632/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Education and Health Promotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_839_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_839_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单一最佳答案类型的 MCQ 是医学评估中常用的工具。然而,它们并不特别适合评估学生的高阶思维能力(HOTS)。评估高阶思维能力和临床推理能力需要一些尚未开发的工具,如扩展匹配问题(EMQs)和SCTs。本研究的目的是在以休克为主题的模拟教学(SBE)后,使用EMQ和SCT对医学生的高阶思维能力和临床推理能力进行形成性评估,并收集学生对新评估工具的看法:本研究是一项观察性描述研究。52 名医学专业一年级学生被要求在 2022 年 7 月的一次以休克为主题的 SBE 之后进行一次形成性评估,其中包括 20 个 MCQ、6 个 EMQ 和 2 个 SCT。MCQ 分为休克病因学、病理生理学和休克管理三个主题。这些分类 MCQ 与就相同主题编写的 EMQ 和 SCT 进行了比较和分析。通过单因素方差分析(ANOVA)对数据进行分析,以比较 MCQ 与 EMQ 和 MCQ 与 SCT 的百分比平均分差异:总平均分以及病因和管理主题下,学生在 MCQ 中的得分高于 EMQ 和 SCT,差异具有统计学意义,P 值(≤0.001):结论:学生在 MCQ 等熟悉的评估工具中得分较高,但大多数学生认为 EMQ 更好地测试了授课内容,而 SCT 更好地测试了临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison between MCQ, Extended matching questions (EMQ) and Script concordance test (SCT) for assessment among first-year medical students - A pilot study.

Background: Single-best response types of MCQs are commonly used tools in medical assessment. However, these are not particularly apt for the assessment of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) among students. Assessment of HOTS and clinical reasoning skills requires unexplored tools like extended matching questions (EMQs) and SCTs. The aim is to assess HOTS and clinical reasoning skills during formative assessment among medical students post a simulation-based education (SBE) using EMQ and SCT on the topic of shock and collect student perceptions regarding new assessment tools.

Methods and material: The research is an observational descriptive study. Fifty-two first-year medical students were asked to take a formative assessment consisting of 20 MCQs, 6 EMQs, and 2 SCT post a SBE during July 2022 on the topic of shock. MCQs were categorized into themes of aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of shock. These categorized MCQs were compared and analyzed with EMQs and SCTs prepared on the same themes. The data analysis by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the difference in per cent mean scores of MCQ with EMQ and MCQ with SCT.

Results: The overall mean scores and also under the theme of aetiology and management, the student's score in MCQ were higher than EMQ and SCT and the difference was statistically significant with the P value (≤0.001).

Conclusions: Students scored better in familiar assessment tools like MCQ, but majority of the students were of the opinion that EMQ tested the delivered content better and SCT tested the clinical application better.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
218
审稿时长
34 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信