调查细胞学教育和细胞形态学检查中的第一直觉谬误。

Q2 Medicine
Paul Z. Chiou DrPH, MPH, SCT(ASCP) , Yuane Jia PhD
{"title":"调查细胞学教育和细胞形态学检查中的第一直觉谬误。","authors":"Paul Z. Chiou DrPH, MPH, SCT(ASCP) ,&nbsp;Yuane Jia PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jasc.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The specific aims of the study are to assess whether answer changing on a high-stakes cytomorphology examination will lower the cytology examinees’ scores and to examine whether there is a difference in the frequency of responses changed between high-, average-, and low-performing cytology learners. The paper also seeks to explore if there is a correlation between outcomes of answer changes (success rates) and cytology learner’s levels of performance.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>The eraser marks and pen cross-outs on the cytology final image examinations from 2019-2023 were reviewed and the number of changes made by the examinees and the frequency to which scores were raised or lowered as a result was recorded. Moreover, the response change patterns and outcomes across low-, medium-, and high-performing cytology learners were further analyzed for possible relationships.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the total number of questions where answer(s) were changed (n = 98), close to half (n = 47, 48.0%) of the changes resulted in raising the score, compared with about one-third (n = 34, 34.7%) that lowered it. When the students were classified into academic abilities, there was a significant correlation between the success rates of answers changed across low-, medium-, and higher-performing learners χ<sup>2</sup> (df = 24, n = 24) = 10.24, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05. Our data also showed the average student group to have the highest “scores raised” to “scores lowered” ratio.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Based on these findings, those cytology examinees who are overly cautious about changing initial responses during a high-stake multiple-choice question BOC test may put themselves at a disadvantage.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38262,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","volume":"13 6","pages":"Pages 451-456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating first instinct fallacy in cytology education and cytomorphology examination\",\"authors\":\"Paul Z. Chiou DrPH, MPH, SCT(ASCP) ,&nbsp;Yuane Jia PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jasc.2024.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The specific aims of the study are to assess whether answer changing on a high-stakes cytomorphology examination will lower the cytology examinees’ scores and to examine whether there is a difference in the frequency of responses changed between high-, average-, and low-performing cytology learners. The paper also seeks to explore if there is a correlation between outcomes of answer changes (success rates) and cytology learner’s levels of performance.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>The eraser marks and pen cross-outs on the cytology final image examinations from 2019-2023 were reviewed and the number of changes made by the examinees and the frequency to which scores were raised or lowered as a result was recorded. Moreover, the response change patterns and outcomes across low-, medium-, and high-performing cytology learners were further analyzed for possible relationships.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the total number of questions where answer(s) were changed (n = 98), close to half (n = 47, 48.0%) of the changes resulted in raising the score, compared with about one-third (n = 34, 34.7%) that lowered it. When the students were classified into academic abilities, there was a significant correlation between the success rates of answers changed across low-, medium-, and higher-performing learners χ<sup>2</sup> (df = 24, n = 24) = 10.24, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05. Our data also showed the average student group to have the highest “scores raised” to “scores lowered” ratio.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Based on these findings, those cytology examinees who are overly cautious about changing initial responses during a high-stake multiple-choice question BOC test may put themselves at a disadvantage.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 451-456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213294524000620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213294524000620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:本研究的具体目的是评估在高风险的细胞形态学考试中更改答案是否会降低细胞学考生的分数,并研究高分、平均分和低分细胞学学习者更改答案的频率是否存在差异。本文还试图探讨答案更改的结果(成功率)与细胞学学习者的成绩水平之间是否存在相关性:对2019-2023年细胞学期末图像考试中的橡皮擦标记和钢笔划线进行了审查,并记录了考生所做更改的次数以及因此而提高或降低分数的频率。此外,还进一步分析了低、中、高分细胞学学习者的答题变化模式和结果之间可能存在的关系:在所有更改答案的问题(n = 98)中,近一半(n = 47,48.0%)的答案更改导致分数提高,而约三分之一(n = 34,34.7%)的答案更改导致分数降低。将学生按学习能力分类后,低、中、高成绩学生的答案更改成功率之间存在显著相关性 χ2 (df = 24, n = 24) = 10.24, P < 0.05。我们的数据还显示,成绩一般的学生组 "提高分数 "与 "降低分数 "的比率最高:根据这些发现,在高分多选题BOC测试中,那些对改变初始回答过于谨慎的细胞学考生可能会让自己处于不利地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating first instinct fallacy in cytology education and cytomorphology examination

Introduction

The specific aims of the study are to assess whether answer changing on a high-stakes cytomorphology examination will lower the cytology examinees’ scores and to examine whether there is a difference in the frequency of responses changed between high-, average-, and low-performing cytology learners. The paper also seeks to explore if there is a correlation between outcomes of answer changes (success rates) and cytology learner’s levels of performance.

Materials and methods

The eraser marks and pen cross-outs on the cytology final image examinations from 2019-2023 were reviewed and the number of changes made by the examinees and the frequency to which scores were raised or lowered as a result was recorded. Moreover, the response change patterns and outcomes across low-, medium-, and high-performing cytology learners were further analyzed for possible relationships.

Results

Among the total number of questions where answer(s) were changed (n = 98), close to half (n = 47, 48.0%) of the changes resulted in raising the score, compared with about one-third (n = 34, 34.7%) that lowered it. When the students were classified into academic abilities, there was a significant correlation between the success rates of answers changed across low-, medium-, and higher-performing learners χ2 (df = 24, n = 24) = 10.24, P < 0.05. Our data also showed the average student group to have the highest “scores raised” to “scores lowered” ratio.

Conclusions

Based on these findings, those cytology examinees who are overly cautious about changing initial responses during a high-stake multiple-choice question BOC test may put themselves at a disadvantage.
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
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
40 days
×
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