Search

Abstract Background Standard setting for clinical examinations typically uses the borderline regression method to set the pass mark. An assumption made in using this method is that there are equal intervals between global ratings (GR) (e.g. Fail, Borderline Pass, Clear Pass, Good and Excellent). However, this assumption has never been tested in the medical literature to the best of our knowledge. We examine if the assumption of equal intervals between GR is met, and the potential implications for student outcomes. Methods Clinical finals examiners were recruited across two institutions to place the typical ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ candidate on a continuous slider scale between a typical ‘Fail’ candidate at point 0 and a typical ‘Excellent’ candidate at point 1. Results were analysed using one-sample t-testing of each interval to an equal interval size of 0.25. Secondary data analysis was performed on summative assessment scores for 94 clinical stations and 1191 medical student examination outcomes in the final 2 years of study at a single centre. Results On a scale from 0.00 (Fail) to 1.00 (Excellent), mean examiner GRs for ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ were 0.33, 0.55 and 0.77 respectively. All of the four intervals between GRs (Fail-Borderline Pass, Borderline Pass-Clear Pass, Clear Pass-Good, Good-Excellent) were statistically significantly different to the expected value of 0.25 (all p-values

Abstract Introduction Clinical examinations (assessments) are integral to ensuring that medical students can treat patients safely and effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional formats of clinical examinations. This prompted Medical Schools to adapt their approaches to conducting these examinations to make them suitable for delivery in the pandemic. This systematic review aims to identify the approaches that Medical Schools, internationally, adopted in adapting their clinical examinations of medical students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Three databases and four key medical education journals were systematically searched up to 22 October 2021; a grey literature search was also undertaken. Two reviewers independently screened at title, abstract stage and full text stage against predefined eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and involvement of senior authors. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of a pre-existing risk of bias assessment tool for medical education developments. Results were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Results A total of 36 studies were included, which documented the approaches of 48 Medical Schools in 17 countries. Approaches were categorised into in-person clinical examinations (22 studies) or online clinical examinations (14 studies). Authors of studies reporting in-person clinical examinations described deploying enhanced infection control measures along with modified patient participation. Authors of studies reporting online clinical examinations described using online software to create online examination circuits. All authors reported that adapted examinations were feasible, scores were comparable to previous years’ student cohorts, and participant feedback was positive. Risk of bias assessment highlighted heterogeneity in reporting of the clinical examinations. Conclusions This review identified two broad approaches to adapting clinical examinations in the pandemic: in-person and online. Authors reported it was feasible to conduct clinical examinations in the pandemic where medical educators are given sufficient time and resources to carefully plan and introduce suitable adaptations. However, the risk of bias assessment identified few studies with high reporting quality, which highlights the need for a common framework for reporting of medical education developments to enhance reproducibility across wider contexts. Our review provides medical educators with the opportunity to reflect on past practises and facilitate the design and planning of future examinations.

Background: Standard setting for clinical examinations typically uses the borderline regression method to set the pass mark. An assumption made in using this method is that there are equal intervals between global ratings (GR) (e.g. Fail, Borderline Pass, Clear Pass, Good and Excellent). However, this assumption has never been tested in the medical literature to the best of our knowledge. We examine if the assumption of equal intervals between GR is met, and the potential implications for student outcomes. Methods: Clinical finals examiners were recruited across two institutions to place the typical 'Borderline Pass', 'Clear Pass' and 'Good' candidate on a continuous slider scale between a typical 'Fail' candidate at point 0 and a typical 'Excellent' candidate at point 1. Results were analysed using one-sample t-testing of each interval to an equal interval size of 0.25. Secondary data analysis was performed on summative assessment scores for 94 clinical stations and 1191 medical student examination outcomes in the final 2 years of study at a single centre. Results: On a scale from 0.00 (Fail) to 1.00 (Excellent), mean examiner GRs for 'Borderline Pass', 'Clear Pass' and 'Good' were 0.33, 0.55 and 0.77 respectively. All of the four intervals between GRs (Fail-Borderline Pass, Borderline Pass-Clear Pass, Clear Pass-Good, Good-Excellent) were statistically significantly different to the expected value of 0.25 (all p-values < 0.0125). An ordinal linear regression using mean examiner GRs was performed for each of the 94 stations, to determine pass marks out of 24. This increased pass marks for all 94 stations compared with the original GR locations (mean increase 0.21), and caused one additional fail by overall exam pass mark (out of 1191 students) and 92 additional station fails (out of 11,346 stations). Conclusions: Although the current assumption of equal intervals between GRs across the performance spectrum is not met, and an adjusted regression equation causes an increase in station pass marks, the effect on overall exam pass/fail outcomes is modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The concept of e-Learning has been rapidly accepted as an important component of medical education and is especially adept at teaching clinical skills. However, their impact on learning, particularly in Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) medical school curriculum, has yet to be adequately explored. The aim of this pilot study is to develop interactive e-Learning resources and evaluate their impact in enhancing OHNS teaching in medical school. Methods This pilot study is a randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of e-Learning resources in enhancing the current traditional lecture and tutorial-based teaching of OHNS in medical school. Nineteen final-year medical students from the University of Sydney were recruited for this study, who were randomly allocated into intervention group with additional e-Learning resources (Group A) and control group (Group B). Student knowledge was assessed through objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) with use of standardized forms for objective scoring. Assessors were blinded to student randomization status. A post-study questionnaire was distributed to assess student feedback on the e-Learning resources. Results Eight students were allocated to Group A and 11 students to Group B. Group A performed significantly better than Group B in the overall examination scores (78.50 ± 13.88 v. 55.82 ± 8.23; P =

Background: The concept of e-Learning has been rapidly accepted as an important component of medical education and is especially adept at teaching clinical skills. However, their impact on learning, particularly in Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) medical school curriculum, has yet to be adequately explored. The aim of this pilot study is to develop interactive e-Learning resources and evaluate their impact in enhancing OHNS teaching in medical school. Methods: This pilot study is a randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of e-Learning resources in enhancing the current traditional lecture and tutorial-based teaching of OHNS in medical school. Nineteen final-year medical students from the University of Sydney were recruited for this study, who were randomly allocated into intervention group with additional e-Learning resources (Group A) and control group (Group B). Student knowledge was assessed through objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) with use of standardized forms for objective scoring. Assessors were blinded to student randomization status. A post-study questionnaire was distributed to assess student feedback on the e-Learning resources. Results: Eight students were allocated to Group A and 11 students to Group B. Group A performed significantly better than Group B in the overall examination scores (78.50 ± 13.88 v. 55.82 ± 8.23; P = < 0.01). With the minimum pass mark of 65%, the majority of students in Group A was able to pass the OSCE assessments, while the majority of students in Group B failed (87.50% v. 9.10%; P = 0.01). The post-test questionnaire on the e-Learning resources showed very favorable feedback from the students' perspective. Conclusion: Results from our pilot study suggests that the use of interactive online e-Learning resources can be a valuable adjunct in supplementing OHNS teaching in medical school, as they are readily accessible and allow flexible on-demand learning. Future studies involving large numbers of medical students are needed to validate these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]