混合评估对耳鼻喉科临床实习生工作表现和焦虑水平影响的准实验研究。

IF 0.7
Shuo Wu, Feitong Jian, Qintai Yang
{"title":"混合评估对耳鼻喉科临床实习生工作表现和焦虑水平影响的准实验研究。","authors":"Shuo Wu, Feitong Jian, Qintai Yang","doi":"10.1177/01455613251339760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Traditional assessments for otorhinolaryngology clinical interns primarily rely on closed-book examinations (CBE) to evaluate foundational knowledge and reinforce long-term retention. This quasi-experimental study investigates the impact of a blended assessment model-integrating both open-book and closed-book components-on academic performance, test anxiety, and preparation time, compared to the conventional CBE approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 240 medical students from the 2019 (CBE, n = 115) and 2020 (blended assessment, n = 125) cohorts at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled. Exam scores, preparation time, test format preferences, and Revised Test Anxiety Scale (RTA) scores were collected and analyzed. Statistical comparisons between the 2 groups were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 240 participants (123 males and 117 females) completed the study, achieving a 100% participation rate. No significant differences were found between the CBE and blended assessment groups in academic performance (<i>P</i> = .906) or anxiety levels (<i>P</i> = .411). However, the blended assessment group reported significantly longer preparation times (<i>P</i> = .027). RTA scores were not significantly correlated with gender (<i>P</i> = .416), exam scores (<i>P</i> = .282), or preparation time (<i>P</i> = .410), though female students exhibited slightly higher anxiety levels. Regarding exam format preferences, 19.2% of students favored CBE (70.8% female), while 80.2% preferred open-book exams (43.6% female).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The blended assessment model, incorporating both CBE and open-book examinations, serves as a feasible alternative for evaluating clinical interns, fostering their problem-solving abilities. While it demands increased preparation time, it is well-received by students and holds promise for broader adoption in medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":93984,"journal":{"name":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","volume":" ","pages":"1455613251339760"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Quasi-Experimental Study on the Impact of Blended Assessment on Performance and Anxiety Levels of Otorhinolaryngology Clinical Interns.\",\"authors\":\"Shuo Wu, Feitong Jian, Qintai Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01455613251339760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Traditional assessments for otorhinolaryngology clinical interns primarily rely on closed-book examinations (CBE) to evaluate foundational knowledge and reinforce long-term retention. This quasi-experimental study investigates the impact of a blended assessment model-integrating both open-book and closed-book components-on academic performance, test anxiety, and preparation time, compared to the conventional CBE approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 240 medical students from the 2019 (CBE, n = 115) and 2020 (blended assessment, n = 125) cohorts at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled. Exam scores, preparation time, test format preferences, and Revised Test Anxiety Scale (RTA) scores were collected and analyzed. Statistical comparisons between the 2 groups were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 240 participants (123 males and 117 females) completed the study, achieving a 100% participation rate. No significant differences were found between the CBE and blended assessment groups in academic performance (<i>P</i> = .906) or anxiety levels (<i>P</i> = .411). However, the blended assessment group reported significantly longer preparation times (<i>P</i> = .027). RTA scores were not significantly correlated with gender (<i>P</i> = .416), exam scores (<i>P</i> = .282), or preparation time (<i>P</i> = .410), though female students exhibited slightly higher anxiety levels. Regarding exam format preferences, 19.2% of students favored CBE (70.8% female), while 80.2% preferred open-book exams (43.6% female).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The blended assessment model, incorporating both CBE and open-book examinations, serves as a feasible alternative for evaluating clinical interns, fostering their problem-solving abilities. While it demands increased preparation time, it is well-received by students and holds promise for broader adoption in medical education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93984,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ear, nose, & throat journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1455613251339760\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ear, nose, & throat journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613251339760\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613251339760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:耳鼻喉科临床实习生的传统评估主要依靠闭卷考试(CBE)来评估基础知识并加强长期记忆。与传统的CBE方法相比,这项准实验研究调查了混合评估模型(整合开卷和闭卷组件)对学习成绩、考试焦虑和准备时间的影响。方法:选取中山大学第三附属医院2019年(CBE, n = 115)和2020年(混合评估,n = 125)队列的240名医学生。收集并分析考试成绩、备考时间、考试形式偏好和修订考试焦虑量表(RTA)得分。两组间进行统计学比较。结果:240名参与者(123名男性,117名女性)全部完成了研究,参与率达到100%。CBE和混合评估组在学业成绩(P = .906)或焦虑水平(P = .411)方面无显著差异。然而,混合评估组报告了更长的准备时间(P = 0.027)。RTA分数与性别(P = .416)、考试成绩(P = .282)或备考时间(P = .410)无显著相关,但女生表现出略高的焦虑水平。在考试形式偏好方面,19.2%的学生喜欢CBE(70.8%的女性),80.2%的学生喜欢开卷考试(43.6%的女性)。结论:CBE与开卷考试相结合的混合考核模式是临床实习生考核的一种可行选择,可培养实习生解决问题的能力。虽然它需要更多的准备时间,但它受到学生的欢迎,并有望在医学教育中得到更广泛的采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Quasi-Experimental Study on the Impact of Blended Assessment on Performance and Anxiety Levels of Otorhinolaryngology Clinical Interns.

Objective: Traditional assessments for otorhinolaryngology clinical interns primarily rely on closed-book examinations (CBE) to evaluate foundational knowledge and reinforce long-term retention. This quasi-experimental study investigates the impact of a blended assessment model-integrating both open-book and closed-book components-on academic performance, test anxiety, and preparation time, compared to the conventional CBE approach.

Methods: A total of 240 medical students from the 2019 (CBE, n = 115) and 2020 (blended assessment, n = 125) cohorts at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled. Exam scores, preparation time, test format preferences, and Revised Test Anxiety Scale (RTA) scores were collected and analyzed. Statistical comparisons between the 2 groups were performed.

Results: All 240 participants (123 males and 117 females) completed the study, achieving a 100% participation rate. No significant differences were found between the CBE and blended assessment groups in academic performance (P = .906) or anxiety levels (P = .411). However, the blended assessment group reported significantly longer preparation times (P = .027). RTA scores were not significantly correlated with gender (P = .416), exam scores (P = .282), or preparation time (P = .410), though female students exhibited slightly higher anxiety levels. Regarding exam format preferences, 19.2% of students favored CBE (70.8% female), while 80.2% preferred open-book exams (43.6% female).

Conclusion: The blended assessment model, incorporating both CBE and open-book examinations, serves as a feasible alternative for evaluating clinical interns, fostering their problem-solving abilities. While it demands increased preparation time, it is well-received by students and holds promise for broader adoption in medical education.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信