PubMed · 6919442
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G R McMeen, J H Thorman. Immediate feedback and test--scoring.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6919442/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: In the section for general practice at the University of Bergen, Norway, we want to emphasise learning more than control in our work with students. As a step in this direction we invited students to come up with proposals for exam papers, papers that usually include six to nine multiple steps for clinical reasoning. We guaranteed that one out of three proposals would be included as a paper in the written examination, possibly slightly modified. This article is an evaluation of the consequences of letting medical students set some of their own exam papers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The process was evaluated using 1) grades given, 2) students' assessment of whether this mode of setting papers influenced their exam preparations, and 3) students' free-text comments on the process. RESULTS: 57 out of 64 students (89%) took part in the evaluation. All knew that their fellow students had set one of the exam papers, but only 34 (60%) reported that this knowledge had changed the way they prepared for the exam. The mean grade was 9.9 (range 5-12, on a scale from 1 to 12, 6 being the lowest pass grade) for the paper set by students, and 9.5 (range 5-11) for all papers combined. Mean difference in score was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.08-0.64). Students' free-text comments showed that they specifically prepared for the three known paper topics. They drew comfort from knowing at least one of the papers set, and the student-set papers were found relevant for general practice. INTERPRETATION: Letting medical students set one of the exam papers makes them feel more confident. Student-set papers were seen as relevant for clinical practice. The control function of the exam seemed to have been preserved.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Surgical programs use the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) in several ways, including for promotion and retention decisions. The purpose of this study was to identify the combination of factors that explain residents' successful performance on the ABSITE. METHODS: Fifty-one surgical residents completed questionnaires, and information was gathered about their previous ABSITE performance, anxiety, probationary status, amount of study, amount of sleep before examination, confidence, and attendance at conference. RESULTS: An analysis of the data for those with experience taking the examination (n = 34) indicated that the combination of conference attendance (26.3%), previous performance (16.5%), probationary status (10.4%), amount of sleep (9.8%), and amount of study (8%) were significant in explaining a total of 71% of the variance in ABSITE scores. Amount of study (+0.32, P = 0.011), confidence (+0.36, P = 0.005), and conference attendance (+0.51, P = 0.001) were significantly correlated with ABSITE performance. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors contribute to residents' successful ABSITE performance. These findings may lead to improved examination performance and application of knowledge, both during residency and throughout their career.