生理脚本一致性测试:准备,评分,和学生的看法-混合方法研究。

IF 0.8 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24
Y C Nalini, Shivasakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai
{"title":"生理脚本一致性测试:准备,评分,和学生的看法-混合方法研究。","authors":"Y C Nalini, Shivasakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai","doi":"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the curriculum has changed, assessment tools are not in alignment with the new types of teaching such as early clinical exposure (ECE) and self-directed learning. Both in summative and formative assessment most commonly used tools for assessment of cognitive domain are written formats including MCQ. However, these assessment tools such as MCQ and written essays cannot assess the higher order thinking skills and clinical reasoning skills.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The present study was conducted in the department of physiology, in collaboration with medical simulation center, as a part of formative assessment for topics on pathophysiology of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders taught during ECE using case scenarios. Two script concordance tests (SCTs) each on the topic of pathophysiological mechanism of different types of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders each were prepared and administered to the students. Student perception to this assessment tools was obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Cronbach's alpha of the 6-item SCT for respiratory and cardiovascular topic administered to the students (<i>n</i> = 107, 98) was 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The inter-item correlation was respiratory and cardiovascular topic for 0.71, 0.69 suggesting that they are close and repetitive. Students were of the opinion that SCT are difficult to understand (75.8%), challenging to answer (47.2%), and it tested the clinical content better (71.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our study, students felt though SCT tested the clinical content better when compared to conventionally used MCQ, they still find it challenging to understand and are not in favor of its use in summative and formative assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":13727,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","volume":"14 4","pages":"246-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11691097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Script Concordance Test in Physiology: Preparation, Scoring, and Student Perceptions - A Mixed Method Study.\",\"authors\":\"Y C Nalini, Shivasakthy Manivasakan, Dinker R Pai\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the curriculum has changed, assessment tools are not in alignment with the new types of teaching such as early clinical exposure (ECE) and self-directed learning. Both in summative and formative assessment most commonly used tools for assessment of cognitive domain are written formats including MCQ. However, these assessment tools such as MCQ and written essays cannot assess the higher order thinking skills and clinical reasoning skills.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The present study was conducted in the department of physiology, in collaboration with medical simulation center, as a part of formative assessment for topics on pathophysiology of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders taught during ECE using case scenarios. Two script concordance tests (SCTs) each on the topic of pathophysiological mechanism of different types of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders each were prepared and administered to the students. Student perception to this assessment tools was obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Cronbach's alpha of the 6-item SCT for respiratory and cardiovascular topic administered to the students (<i>n</i> = 107, 98) was 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The inter-item correlation was respiratory and cardiovascular topic for 0.71, 0.69 suggesting that they are close and repetitive. Students were of the opinion that SCT are difficult to understand (75.8%), challenging to answer (47.2%), and it tested the clinical content better (71.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our study, students felt though SCT tested the clinical content better when compared to conventionally used MCQ, they still find it challenging to understand and are not in favor of its use in summative and formative assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"246-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11691097/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然课程已经改变,评估工具并不符合新的教学类型,如早期临床暴露(ECE)和自主学习。无论是总结性评估还是形成性评估,最常用的认知领域评估工具都是书面形式,包括MCQ。然而,这些评估工具,如MCQ和书面论文不能评估高阶思维能力和临床推理能力。材料和方法:本研究是在生理学系与医学模拟中心合作进行的,作为ECE使用案例情景教授的休克和阻塞性和限制性肺疾病病理生理学主题形成性评估的一部分。准备并对学生进行两项关于不同类型休克和阻塞性和限制性肺疾病的病理生理机制的文字一致性测试(sct)。获得学生对该评估工具的认知。结果:给予学生(n = 107, 98)的呼吸和心血管主题的6项SCT的Cronbach's alpha分别为0.83和0.82。呼吸和心血管主题的项目间相关系数分别为0.71和0.69,表明它们是密切和重复的。学生认为SCT难以理解(75.8%),难以回答(47.2%),对临床内容的检测效果较好(71.4%)。结论:在我们的研究中,学生认为尽管SCT测试临床内容比传统使用的MCQ更好,但他们仍然觉得理解起来很有挑战性,并且不赞成在总结性和形成性评估中使用SCT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Script Concordance Test in Physiology: Preparation, Scoring, and Student Perceptions - A Mixed Method Study.

Background: Although the curriculum has changed, assessment tools are not in alignment with the new types of teaching such as early clinical exposure (ECE) and self-directed learning. Both in summative and formative assessment most commonly used tools for assessment of cognitive domain are written formats including MCQ. However, these assessment tools such as MCQ and written essays cannot assess the higher order thinking skills and clinical reasoning skills.

Materials and methods: The present study was conducted in the department of physiology, in collaboration with medical simulation center, as a part of formative assessment for topics on pathophysiology of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders taught during ECE using case scenarios. Two script concordance tests (SCTs) each on the topic of pathophysiological mechanism of different types of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders each were prepared and administered to the students. Student perception to this assessment tools was obtained.

Results: The Cronbach's alpha of the 6-item SCT for respiratory and cardiovascular topic administered to the students (n = 107, 98) was 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The inter-item correlation was respiratory and cardiovascular topic for 0.71, 0.69 suggesting that they are close and repetitive. Students were of the opinion that SCT are difficult to understand (75.8%), challenging to answer (47.2%), and it tested the clinical content better (71.4%).

Conclusions: In our study, students felt though SCT tested the clinical content better when compared to conventionally used MCQ, they still find it challenging to understand and are not in favor of its use in summative and formative assessments.

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
46
期刊最新文献
Acquisition of Certifiable Competencies in Undergraduate Medical Curriculum of National Medical Commission: Role of Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice. Adapting a Longitudinal Structured Program to Enhance Research Skills in Undergraduate Medical Students: A Key Advancement in Competency-Based Medical Education. Assessing the Effectiveness of Student-generated Scenario-based Questions as a Tool for Active Learning. Challenges in Implementing Competency-based Medical Education in India - Stakeholders' Perspective: A Mixed-method Analysis. Comparative Analysis of Impact of Different Skill-training Methods among Medical Students: A Cross-sectional Study.
×
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