Ponce de León-C ME, Ortiz-Montalvo A, Ruíz-Alcocer MC

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 311-316
PDF size: 60.62 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A diagnostic test was applied at the National Autonomous University of Mexico School of Medicine using a two-part format with 42 clinical cases and 210 multiple-choice items. Residents were randomized into two groups: group A (printed test) and group B (computerized test). Academic performance was measured by determination of media, standard deviation, and correct-answer score; the exam was measured by reliability, difficulty index, and discrimination index and question/item assessment were calculated for item analysis.
Residents answered a survey questionnaire and time taken to answer was controlled. Results showed that the printed test had higher achievement; there was better reliability for computerized format, and resident opinion was more favorable toward computer use. The two parts of the test were analyzed and results were produced for the first part of the test; in part two, results were very similar. We conclude that lack of experience in computer use could be a determining factor in our results.

REFERENCES

1. Lee G, Weerakoon P. The role of computer-aided assessment in health professional education: a comparison of student performance in computer-based and paper-and-pen multiple choice tests. Med Teach 2001;23:152-157.

2. 2. Morán AC, Cruz LV. Uso de la computadora en estudiantes de medicina. Rev Fac Med UNAM; 2001;44:195-197.

3. 3. Herskovic P, Vásquez A, Herskovic J, Herskovic V, Roizen A, Urrutia MT, Miranda C, Beytía M. Ownership of computers and abilities for their use in a sample of Chilean medical students. Med Teach 2000;22:197-199.

4. 4. Butzin DW, Friedman CP, Brownlee RC. A pilot study of microcomputer testing in paediatrics. Med Educ 1984;18:339-342.

5. 5. Legler JD, Realini JP. Computerized student testing as a learning tool in a family practice clerkship. Fam Med 1994;26:14-17.

6. 6. Ogilvie RW, Trusk TC, Blue AV. Students’ attitudes towards computer testing in a basic science course. Med Educ 1999; 33:828-831.

7. 7. Whorthley LI. A computer program to prepare and answer multiple choice questions. Anaesth Intens Care 1985;13:417-419.

8. 8. Herskovic P. Reutilization of multiple-choice questions. Med Teach 1999;21:430-431.

9. 9. Ram P, Van Der Vleuten C, Rethans JJ, Schouten B, Hobma S, Grol R. Assessment in general practice: the predictive value of written-knowledge tests and a multiple-station examination for actual medical performance in daily practice. Med Educ 1999;33:197-203.

10. Dugdale AE. The Pathway MCQ: a method for teaching and testing deeper knowledge. Med Teach 1998;20:250-253.

11. Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LJ, Webster GD. Reliability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice question and patient management problem item formats in assessment of clinical competence. Med Educ 1985;19:238-247.

12. Scheuneman JD, Van Fan Y, Clyman SG. An investigation of the difficulty of computer-based case simulations. Med Educ 1998;32:150-158.

13. Schuwirth LWT, Blackmore DE, Mom E, Van Den Wildenberg F, Stoffers HEJH, Van Der Vleuten CPM. How to write short cases for assessing problem-solving skills. Med Teach 1999;21:144-150.

14. Miller AP, Haden P, Scwartz PL, Loten EG. Pilot studies of in-course assessment for a revised medical curriculum: II. Computer-based, individual. Acad Med 1997; 72: 1113-1115.

15. Ram P, Van Der Vleuten C, Rethans JJ, Grol R, Aretz K. Assessment of practicing family physicians: comparison of observation in a multiple-station examination using standardized patients with observation of consultations in daily practice. Acad Med 1999;74:62-69.

16. Lowe D. Set a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination. Br Med J 1991;302:780-782.

17. Ram P, Van Der Vleuten C, Tethans JJ, Schouten B, Hobma S. Assessment in general practice: the predictive value of griten-knowledge test and multiple-station examination for actual medical performance in daily practice. Med Educ 1999;33:197-203