{"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}
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.