牙科学生临床推理能力的计算机与纸本评估之差异。

Michiyo Kurosa, Ken-ichi Tonami, Satoko Ohara, Sachi Umemori, Kanako Noritake, Masayo Sunaga, Atsuhiro Kinoshita, Kouji Araki
{"title":"牙科学生临床推理能力的计算机与纸本评估之差异。","authors":"Michiyo Kurosa,&nbsp;Ken-ichi Tonami,&nbsp;Satoko Ohara,&nbsp;Sachi Umemori,&nbsp;Kanako Noritake,&nbsp;Masayo Sunaga,&nbsp;Atsuhiro Kinoshita,&nbsp;Kouji Araki","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical reasoning competency is essential for an appropriate clinical dental treatment. Among the tools for the assessment of clinical reasoning competency, computer-based testing (CBT) is considered more useful than paper-based testing (PBT), because teachers can control the timing of information given to the examinees. Such timings could possibly affect the thinking process of examinees. However, few studies reported differences of reasoning between the two testing modes. In the present study, we developed an assessment of clinical reasoning and applied it using CBT and PBT to compare the examinees' performance. The participants comprised 60 students in the fifth-year class in 2012 of the School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The tests comprised 25 problems, each with four questions, totaling 100 questions. The contents of the questions were the same in CBT and PBT. The students were assigned to CBT (Group C, n = 30) and PBT (Group P, n = 30) groups, with an almost equal gender ratio in the groups. The difference between scores was analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance. No significant intergroup differences were found regarding the test duration, total score, and average score of each question. The number of problems with perfect marks was higher in Group P than in Group C (P < 0.05), probably because Group P students could access the information of the previous question (s) within a problem. Thus, the differences of the examinees' performance between the two testing modes were small.</p>","PeriodicalId":76076,"journal":{"name":"Kokubyo Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Stomatological Society, Japan","volume":"83 1","pages":"25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences between Computer-Based and Paper-Based Assessments of the Clinical Reasoning Competency of Dental Students.\",\"authors\":\"Michiyo Kurosa,&nbsp;Ken-ichi Tonami,&nbsp;Satoko Ohara,&nbsp;Sachi Umemori,&nbsp;Kanako Noritake,&nbsp;Masayo Sunaga,&nbsp;Atsuhiro Kinoshita,&nbsp;Kouji Araki\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical reasoning competency is essential for an appropriate clinical dental treatment. Among the tools for the assessment of clinical reasoning competency, computer-based testing (CBT) is considered more useful than paper-based testing (PBT), because teachers can control the timing of information given to the examinees. Such timings could possibly affect the thinking process of examinees. However, few studies reported differences of reasoning between the two testing modes. In the present study, we developed an assessment of clinical reasoning and applied it using CBT and PBT to compare the examinees' performance. The participants comprised 60 students in the fifth-year class in 2012 of the School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The tests comprised 25 problems, each with four questions, totaling 100 questions. The contents of the questions were the same in CBT and PBT. The students were assigned to CBT (Group C, n = 30) and PBT (Group P, n = 30) groups, with an almost equal gender ratio in the groups. The difference between scores was analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance. No significant intergroup differences were found regarding the test duration, total score, and average score of each question. The number of problems with perfect marks was higher in Group P than in Group C (P < 0.05), probably because Group P students could access the information of the previous question (s) within a problem. Thus, the differences of the examinees' performance between the two testing modes were small.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kokubyo Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Stomatological Society, Japan\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"25-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kokubyo Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Stomatological Society, Japan\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kokubyo Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Stomatological Society, Japan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

临床推理能力是必要的一个适当的临床牙科治疗。在临床推理能力评估的工具中,基于计算机的测试(CBT)被认为比基于纸的测试(PBT)更有用,因为教师可以控制向考生提供信息的时间。这样的时间点可能会影响考生的思维过程。然而,很少有研究报道两种测试模式之间的推理差异。在本研究中,我们开发了一种临床推理评估方法,并将其应用于CBT和PBT来比较考生的表现。参与者包括东京医科和牙科大学牙科学院牙科学院2012年五年级的60名学生。测试包括25个问题,每个问题有4个问题,总共100个问题。CBT和PBT的问题内容相同。这些学生被分为CBT组(C组,n = 30)和PBT组(P组,n = 30),两组的性别比例几乎相等。用单变量方差分析分析得分之间的差异。在测试时间、总分和每道题的平均分方面,组间无显著差异。P组的满分题数高于C组(P < 0.05),这可能是因为P组的学生可以在一个问题中获取到之前问题的信息。因此,考生在两种测试模式之间的表现差异很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences between Computer-Based and Paper-Based Assessments of the Clinical Reasoning Competency of Dental Students.

Clinical reasoning competency is essential for an appropriate clinical dental treatment. Among the tools for the assessment of clinical reasoning competency, computer-based testing (CBT) is considered more useful than paper-based testing (PBT), because teachers can control the timing of information given to the examinees. Such timings could possibly affect the thinking process of examinees. However, few studies reported differences of reasoning between the two testing modes. In the present study, we developed an assessment of clinical reasoning and applied it using CBT and PBT to compare the examinees' performance. The participants comprised 60 students in the fifth-year class in 2012 of the School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The tests comprised 25 problems, each with four questions, totaling 100 questions. The contents of the questions were the same in CBT and PBT. The students were assigned to CBT (Group C, n = 30) and PBT (Group P, n = 30) groups, with an almost equal gender ratio in the groups. The difference between scores was analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance. No significant intergroup differences were found regarding the test duration, total score, and average score of each question. The number of problems with perfect marks was higher in Group P than in Group C (P < 0.05), probably because Group P students could access the information of the previous question (s) within a problem. Thus, the differences of the examinees' performance between the two testing modes were small.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信