PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7845258

Formative assessment: a student perspective.

Abstract

An educator's view would be that formative assessment has an important role in the learning process. This study was carried out to obtain a student perspective of the place of formative assessment in the curriculum. Final-year medical students at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital took part in four teaching sessions, each structured to integrate teaching with assessment. Three assessment methods were used; the group objective structured clinical examination (G-OSCE), structured short answer (SSA) questions and a pre/post-test multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ). Teaching sessions were conducted on the subject areas of traumatology, the 'acute abdomen', arterial disorders and cancer. Fifty-five students, representing 83% of those who took part in the programme, responded to a questionnaire where they were asked to rate (on a 5-point Likert scale) their response to general questions about formative assessment and 13 specific questions concerning the comparative value of the three assessment modalities. Eighty-nine per cent of respondents felt that formative assessment should be incorporated into the teaching process. The SSA assessment was regarded as the preferred modality to reinforce previous teaching and test problem-solving skills. The MCQ was the least favoured assessment method. The effect size variable between the total scores for the SSA and MCQ was 0.64. The variable between G-OSCE and SSA/MCQ was 0.26 and 0.33 respectively. Formative assessment is a potentially powerful method to direct learning behaviour. Students should have input into the methods used.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D A Hill, A I Guinea, W H McCarthy. 1994. Formative assessment: a student perspective.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1994.tb02550.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗