Investigating first instinct fallacy in cytology education and cytomorphology examination

Paul Z. Chiou DrPH, MPH, SCT(ASCP) , Yuane Jia PhD
{"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查细胞学教育和细胞形态学检查中的第一直觉谬误。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
FNA diagnosis of secondary malignancies in the parotid gland: over 20 years of experience from a single institute. Application of the WHO reporting system for soft tissue cytopathology with assessment of risk of malignancy: a retrospective study. Triage options for positive high-risk HPV results from HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a review of the potential alternatives to Papanicolaou test cytology. A review of the performance of urinary cytology with a focus on atypia, upper tract and updates on novel ancillary testing. Cytology fine-needle aspiration and surgical pathology core needle biopsy reporting: blurred lines or battle lines?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1