PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 928664

Radiographic positioning test format for programs using an energized x-ray laboratory.

M Tortorici
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As a means of evaluating student performance in the clinical setting, three major areas of testing have been identified: (1) time required to position the patient for any given examination, (2) procedure performance, and (3) ability to evaluate the finished radiograph as to its diagnostic quality. The testing format developed at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is used to examine the student as he performs in an energized laboratory. This format, based on criteria the student knows in advance, increased the objectivity of the instructor giving the examination.

Explore related subjects

Educational MeasurementNevadaPostureTechnology, RadiologicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Tortorici. Radiographic positioning test format for programs using an energized x-ray laboratory.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/928664/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

[What happens when medical students set their own exam papers?].

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.

Educational Measurement↗