Do consecutive Patient Management Problem (PMP) and Modified Essay Question (MEQ) Examinations Improve Clinical Reasoning in Students?

Q4 Social Sciences Strides in Development of Medical Education Pub Date : 2019-09-25 DOI:10.5812/sdme.86566
M. Mahmoodi
{"title":"Do consecutive Patient Management Problem (PMP) and Modified Essay Question (MEQ) Examinations Improve Clinical Reasoning in Students?","authors":"M. Mahmoodi","doi":"10.5812/sdme.86566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement of students’ ability to answer consecutive patient management problem (PMP) and modified essay question (MEQ) exams, to assess its relationship with academic progress, and to determine whether consecutive PMP-MEQ exams can improve the students’ clinical reasoning skills by improving the test scores. Methods This descriptive, analytical, cross-sectional study consisted of 67 third-year nutrition students in three consecutive years, who were asked to prepare for a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test and consecutive PMP-MEQ exams. The students were required to answer PMP-MEQ exam, which comprised of two queries of five-choice question (PMP) and three short-answer questions (MEQ). Repeated measures ANOVA, independent -test, paired -test, and Pearson’s correlation test were used for statistical analysis. Results The mean difference in PMP scores was significant between the three periods (P = 0.0001). However, the difference in the mean score of PMP exam between students with grade point average (GPA) ≥ 16 and GPA < 16 was not significant, except for PMP3 (P = 0.001). An increase was observed in the scores of students in both groups by continuous PMP examination. The significant mean difference in PMP3 exam showed that improvement of students with GPA ≥ 16 was greater than that of students with GPA < 16 (P = 0.001). The difference in the mean scores of MCQ and PMP exams was significant, except for the third PMP exam in students with GPA ≥ 16 (P = 0.143). Conclusions Use of PMP-MEQ exams in reasoning-based clinical education can be a suitable approach for clinical evaluation of undergraduate students. Also, continuous PMP-MEQ examination can improve the clinical reasoning of students, mainly those with GPA ≥ 16.","PeriodicalId":34340,"journal":{"name":"Strides in Development of Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strides in Development of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.86566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement of students’ ability to answer consecutive patient management problem (PMP) and modified essay question (MEQ) exams, to assess its relationship with academic progress, and to determine whether consecutive PMP-MEQ exams can improve the students’ clinical reasoning skills by improving the test scores. Methods This descriptive, analytical, cross-sectional study consisted of 67 third-year nutrition students in three consecutive years, who were asked to prepare for a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test and consecutive PMP-MEQ exams. The students were required to answer PMP-MEQ exam, which comprised of two queries of five-choice question (PMP) and three short-answer questions (MEQ). Repeated measures ANOVA, independent -test, paired -test, and Pearson’s correlation test were used for statistical analysis. Results The mean difference in PMP scores was significant between the three periods (P = 0.0001). However, the difference in the mean score of PMP exam between students with grade point average (GPA) ≥ 16 and GPA < 16 was not significant, except for PMP3 (P = 0.001). An increase was observed in the scores of students in both groups by continuous PMP examination. The significant mean difference in PMP3 exam showed that improvement of students with GPA ≥ 16 was greater than that of students with GPA < 16 (P = 0.001). The difference in the mean scores of MCQ and PMP exams was significant, except for the third PMP exam in students with GPA ≥ 16 (P = 0.143). Conclusions Use of PMP-MEQ exams in reasoning-based clinical education can be a suitable approach for clinical evaluation of undergraduate students. Also, continuous PMP-MEQ examination can improve the clinical reasoning of students, mainly those with GPA ≥ 16.
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
连续的病人管理问题(PMP)和修改的论述问题(MEQ)考试能提高学生的临床推理能力吗?
目的本研究旨在评估学生在连续患者管理问题(PMP)和修改论述问题(MEQ)考试中回答能力的提高,评估其与学业进步的关系,并确定连续PMP-MEQ考试是否能通过提高考试成绩来提高学生的临床推理能力。方法采用描述性、分析性、横断面研究方法,连续三年对67名营养专业三年级学生进行调查,要求他们准备多项选择题(MCQ)测试和连续的PMP-MEQ考试。学生被要求回答PMP-MEQ考试,包括两个五选择题(PMP)和三个简答题(MEQ)。采用重复测量方差分析、独立检验、配对检验和Pearson相关检验进行统计分析。结果3期患者PMP评分平均差异有统计学意义(P = 0.0001)。而平均绩点(GPA)≥16和GPA < 16的学生在PMP考试中的平均得分差异无统计学意义(P = 0.001)。通过持续的PMP考试,两组学生的成绩均有提高。PMP3考试的显著平均差异显示,GPA≥16的学生比GPA < 16的学生进步更大(P = 0.001)。除GPA≥16的学生第三次参加PMP考试外,MCQ和PMP考试的平均得分差异均有统计学意义(P = 0.143)。结论PMP-MEQ考试在推理型临床教学中应用,是一种适合本科生临床评价的方法。持续的PMP-MEQ考试可以提高学生的临床推理能力,主要是GPA≥16的学生。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigation of Consistency Between the Students’ Scores Using Bayesian Intraclass Correlation Coefficient in Postgraduate Students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences in 2013 - 2015 The Relationship of Happiness and Quality of Educational Services with Academic Burnout Among Students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran A Study of Courses Related to Drug Abuse Prevention in Medical Sciences Curriculum in Iran Lack of Clinical Leadership Competency in Continuing Education Web-Based Learning in Internal Medicine: The First Step in Electronic Clinical Education of the Department of Internal Medicine
×
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