|
Indian Pediatr 2018;55: 166 -167 |
 |
Recall Type vs
Problem-based Tests for Formative Assessment in
Undergraduate Medical Students
|
* Thananda Trakarnvanich, Supatsri
Sethasine, Charnarong Trisuwanwat and
Methavee Insawang
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine,
Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Email: *[email protected]
|
We studied two types of formative assessment: recall
type, and problem-based questions, with summative scores and previous
grades in 77 fourth-year medical students. We found that the formative
scores did not correlate well with the summative scores, but were
associated with the Grade point average in the preclinical period.
Keywords: Feedback, Prediction, Summative assessment.
|
D uring undergraduate training of medical students,
there should be in-course formative assessment (FA) to provide feedback
on performance, so as to promote better learning outcomes [1]. By
contrast, summative assessment (SA) is an end-of-course assessment; it
is predominantly used for grading and certification at the end of a
study period, often without feedback to students on their performance
[2,3].
However, the reliability and standardization of FAs
is still uncertain [4]. So far, no studies have been undertaken on the
impact of FA or type of questions used during FA [5]. Usually one type
of MCQs is of recall-type questions, which are short questions about
theory. The second type involves problem-based questions, which require
critical thinking. Although, feedback on the performance is more
important in formative assessment, rather than type of questions. The
purpose of the present study was to compare the two types of FA with the
final examination results and previous grade.
We studied fourth-year medical students who enrolled
in the Department of Medicine at our university from April 2015 to March
2016. There were four groups, each with 19 or 20 students. The students
took a formative examination, which consisted of 50 recall-type and 50
problem-based MCQs. At the end of the course, all the students underwent
an SA with 50 recall-type and 50 problem-based MCQs. For the MCQs, we
had two sets of questions (i.e., two sets of recall-type
and two sets of problem-based questions) and alternated the questions
that appeared between the groups. We did not return the examination
papers to the students, thereby eliminating the risk of the content
being circulated among students who had yet to take an examination.
We observed that the FA scores (either recall or
problem-based) significantly correlated with Grade Point Average (GPA)
for years 1–3 (r=0.33, P=0.003). The final examination
scores (SA) also correlated significantly with GPA (r=0.42, P<0.001);
the recall type of FA showed significant correlations with the summative
score (r=0.24, P=0.036); though, the degree of correlation
was not high. The problem-based type of examination displayed no
significant correlation with the final examination scores (r=0.15,
P=0.18). The total FA score evidenced a low correlation (r=0.24)
with SA. The students obtained better scores at the end of the course.
The mean formative and summative scores are represented in Table
I.
TABLE I Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment Scores in Fourth-year Medical Students (N= 77)
|
Mean (SD) |
Summative assessment |
56.5 (7.84) |
Recall, Formative assessment |
49.1 (8.36) |
Problem-based, Formative assessment |
42.8 (7.73) |
Total (recall+problem-based) |
45.9 (6.52) |
P<0.001 for all comparisons; Recall: percentage score of
recall-type questions; Problem-based: percentage score of
problem-based questions. |
We found that the GPA during the first three years of
study also correlated with the FA and SA scores. This result indicates
that most students who achieved good academic marks during their
preclinical studies also obtained favorable results in their clinical
years.
We conclude that FA using recall-type questions is
associated with summative achievement. The formative and summative
scores also correlate with GPA in the preclinical period.
Acknowledgement: Mr Jason Cullen for editing the
manuscript, Ms. Worachanee Imjaijit for statistical analysis, Ms
Ratchadaporn Inunchote for typing the manuscript.
Contributors: TT: designed the study and was
involved with data acquisition, analysis and interpretation as well as
manuscript preparation; SS: edited the manuscript and made revisions for
critically important content; CT and MB: prepared the questions for the
formative and summative examinations and edited the manuscript.
Funding: The research fund from Navamindradhiraj
University, Bangkok,Thailand. Competing interest : None stated.
References
1. Gledhill RF. Formative (in-course) graduate
assessment. Design of an accurate multiple-choice question examination
and the training merits thereof. S Afr Med J. 1983;64: 476-7.
2. Stewart D, Panus P, Hagemeier N, Thigpen J, Brooks
L. Pharmacy student self-testing as a predictor of examination
performance. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78:32.
3. Bouwmeester RA, De Kleijn RA, Freriksen AW, Van
Emst MG, Veeneklaas RJ, Van Hoeij MJ, et al. Online formative
tests linked to microlectures improving academic achievement. Med Teach.
2013;35:1044-6.
4. Rolfe I, McPherson J. Formative assessment: how am
I doing? Lancet. 1995;345:837-9.
5. McNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ.
Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative
examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:
37-44.
|
|
 |
|