Introducing free response short answer questions in anatomy spot tests: experiment study.
Anatomy assessment
Anatomy education
Health professional education
Medical education
Spot test
Steeplechase test
Journal
Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA
ISSN: 1279-8517
Titre abrégé: Surg Radiol Anat
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8608029
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
14
04
2020
accepted:
12
08
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
28
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A spot test is commonly used to assess practical knowledge through a series of specific questions related to the marked anatomical structures on cadavers. However, the continuous reviewing and developing of the medical curricula demands the need to improve the assessment method of the practical examination of anatomical knowledge. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a free response short-answer questions (FRSAQs) test and traditional questions on medical students' performance. This is an experimental study using a Randomized Posttest-Only Control Group Design to compare the mean of students' performance in addition to their perceptions about the two versions of the spot tests. Two hundred and ninety preclinical-year medical students were invited to participate in this study. Only 109 (38%) students participated in this study. The data analysis showed a significant improvement in students' performance in the FRSAQs test (5.3 ± 2.7) than the traditional spot test (4.7 ± 2.6), (P = 0.04). The majority of the students (70%) preferred the FRSAQs spot test, citing that it is good test to assess practical knowledge. The psychometric analysis revealed that the FRSAQs produced more ideal stations (60%) when compared to the traditional spot test (10%). The current study found that the FRSAQs spot test had a significant impact on students' performance, and it was considered an ideal, flexible, and stress-free assessment method when compared to the traditional spot test. Implementation of the strategy in teaching and in assessment is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32851435
doi: 10.1007/s00276-020-02550-3
pii: 10.1007/s00276-020-02550-3
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
497-503Références
Brenner E, Chirculescu AR, Reblet C, Smith C (2015) Assessment in anatomy. Eur J Anat 19(1):105–124
Cherian SB (2017) COSPE in anatomy: an innovative method of evaluation. Int J Adv Res 5(5):325–327. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4115
doi: 10.21474/IJAR01/4115
Choudhury B, Freemont A (2017) Assessment of anatomical knowledge: approaches taken by higher education institutions. Clin Anat 30(3):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22835
doi: 10.1002/ca.22835
pubmed: 28176374
Collins TJ, Given RL, Hulsebosch CE, Miller BT (1994) Status of gross anatomy in the US and Canada: dilemma for the 21st century. Clin Anat 7(5):275–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.980070509
doi: 10.1002/ca.980070509
Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F (2012) Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. JPMA-J Pak Med Assoc 62(2):142
pubmed: 22755376
Ikah DS, Finn GM, Swamy M, White PM, McLachlan JC (2015) Clinical vignettes improve performance in anatomy practical assessment. Anat Sci Educ 8(3):221–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1471
doi: 10.1002/ase.1471
pubmed: 24953193
Inuwa IM, Al Rawahy M, Taranikanti V, Habbal O (2011) Anatomy “steeplechase” online: necessity sometimes is the catalyst for innovation. Anat Sci Educ 4(2):115–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.188
doi: 10.1002/ase.188
pubmed: 21438159
Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O (2012) Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format? Anat Sci Educ 5(1):27–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.254
doi: 10.1002/ase.254
pubmed: 21916021
Krippendorf BB, Bolender DL, Kolesari GL (2008) Computerized grading of anatomy laboratory practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ 1(5):220–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.46
doi: 10.1002/ase.46
pubmed: 19177415
Lenth RV. Java applets for power and sample size [Computer software]. https://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power . Accessed 12 Aug 2019
Mujahid AM, Anjalee O, Ashraf KM, RK Z, (2015) Calculation of difficulty index of soft tissue spotters in anatomy: an advance, novel method of assessment in university examination, a cross sectional study at GMC Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. Indian J Clin Anat Physiol 2(4):190–198. https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-2126.2015.00019.5
doi: 10.5958/2394-2126.2015.00019.5
Paas F, Ayres P, Pachman M (2008) Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Information Age Publishing Inc., Charlotte, pp 11–35
Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ Psychol 38:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Paas F, Van Gog T, Sweller J (2010) Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educ Psychol Rev 22(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
Paas FG, Van Merriënboer JJ (1994) Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 6(4):351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420
doi: 10.1007/BF02213420
Pangaro L, Ten Cate O (2013) Frameworks for learner assessment in medicine: AMEE Guide No. 78. Med Teach 35(6):1197–1210. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.788789
doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.788789
Ranjan R, Jain A, Rashmi Bhujade R (2016) OSPE in anatomy: New dimensions in assessment. Int J Anat Res 4(1):1789–1794. https://doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2015.336
doi: 10.16965/ijar.2015.336
Sagoo MG, Smith CF, Gosden E (2016) Assessment of anatomical knowledge by practical examinations: the effect of question design on student performance. Anat Sci Educ 9(5):446–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1597
doi: 10.1002/ase.1597
pubmed: 26840187
Smith CF, McManus B (2015) The integrated anatomy practical paper: a robust assessment method for anatomy education today. Anat Sci Educ 8(1):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1454
doi: 10.1002/ase.1454
pubmed: 24706567
Sweller J, Chandler P (1994) Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognit Instr 12:185–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
Taib F, Yusoff MSB (2014) Difficulty index, discrimination index, sensitivity and specificity of long case and multiple choice questions to predict medical students’ examination performance. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 9(2):110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2013.12.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2013.12.002
Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P (2013) What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 6(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1305
doi: 10.1002/ase.1305
pubmed: 22930456