Comparison of open and closed book test for admission in medical school.
| Autor: | Cade C; General Practice Department., Riou J; MINT., Richard I; Faculté de Santé., Passirani C; PluriPASS group., Letertre E; PluriPASS group., Fayolle AV; General Practice Department. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | MedEdPublish (2016) [MedEdPublish (2016)] 2018 Jan 25; Vol. 7, pp. 25. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jan 25 (Print Publication: 2018). |
| DOI: | 10.15694/mep.2018.0000025.1 |
| Abstrakt: | This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Introduction: Students' learning methods are highly influenced by the type of evaluation. Consequently, evaluation is a deciding step in the learning process. Multiple Choice Format Tests (MCQs) are almost exclusive in the admission to Health studies. PluriPASS suggests an educational reform of Health studies. This research aims at analyzing docimological features of Open-book Multiple Choice Format tests (OBT) compared to other usual tests used during the first year in Health studies curriculum (CC). Methods: This educational research took place during PluriPASS year in Health studies curriculum at Angers University, during the academic period 2015-2016. The optional course « Disability and Health » (DH) was partly assessed by open-book tests with complex wording, requiring careful thought from students. Results: Out of the 1161 students enrolled in first year curriculum, 190 have chosen the DH. For the students who followed the DH, the CC and OBT distributions are respectively a Skewness score at -0.11 and -0.12 and a Kurtosis score at -0.9 and -0.22. Bland Altman test or Deming method demonstrate a concordance between both method. Conclusion: Distribution characteristics of OBT are satisfactory and allow to consider introducing this method with the objective of promoting reflection and depth learning. (Copyright: © 2018 Cade C et al.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|