Search

Background: Consistent identification and prevention of failure for at-risk medical students is challenging, failing courses is costly to all stakeholders, and there is need for further research into duration, timing and structure of interventions to help students in difficulty. Aims: To verify the value of a new exam two weeks into medical school as a predictor of failure, and explore the requirements for a preventative intervention. Methods: Students who failed the two-week exam were invited to a series of large-group workshops and small-group follow-up meetings. Participants' subsequent exam performance was compared with non-participants. Results: About 71% of students who performed poorly in the new exam subsequently failed a course. Attendance at the workshops made no difference to short- or long-term pass rates. Attendance at more than three follow-up small group sessions significantly improved pass rates two semesters later, and was influenced by teacher experience. Conclusions: Close similarity between predictor task and target task is important for accurate prediction of failure. Consideration should be given to dose effect and class size in the prevention of failure of at-risk students, and we recommend a systemic approach to intervention/remediation programmes, involving a whole semester of mandatory, weekly small group meetings with experienced teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the differential effects of a paper-based versus a web-based portfolio in terms of portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. Methods An experimental design was used to compare Year 1 medical students' reflective portfolios. The portfolios differed in presentation medium only (i.e. web-based versus paper-based). Content analysis, a student questionnaire and mentor interviews were used to evaluate portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. A total of 92 portfolios were scored independently by 2 raters using a portfolio quality-rating instrument. Results Portfolio structure, quality of reflection and quality of evidence showed no significant effects of presentation medium. Multi-level analysis showed a significant effect for student motivation: web-based portfolios scored 0.39 more than paper-based portfolios ( P < 0.05; effect size 0.76). The mentors reported no differences in portfolio quality, except that there were more visuals in web-based portfolios. Students spent significantly more time preparing the web-based than the paper-based portfolios (15.4 hours versus 12.2 hours; t = 2.1, P < 0.05; effect size 0.46). The 2 student groups did not differ significantly in terms of their satisfaction with the portfolio. The mentors perceived the web-based portfolios as more user-friendly. Conclusions The web-based portfolios were found to enhance students' motivation, were more user-friendly for mentors, and delivered the same content quality compared with paper-based portfolios. This suggests that web-based presentation may promote acceptance of portfolios by students and teachers alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are no scientific theories that are uniquely related to assessment in medical education. There are many theories in adjacent fields, however, that can be informative for assessment in medical education, and in the recent decades they have proven their value. In this AMEE Guide we discuss theories on expertise development and psychometric theories, and the relatively young and emerging framework of assessment for learning. Expertise theories highlight the multistage processes involved. The transition from novice to expert is characterised by an increase in the aggregation of concepts from isolated facts, through semantic networks to illness scripts and instance scripts. The latter two stages enable the expert to recognise the problem quickly and form a quick and accurate representation of the problem in his/her working memory. Striking differences between experts and novices is not per se the possession of more explicit knowledge but the superior organisation of knowledge in his/her brain and pairing it with multiple real experiences, enabling not only better problem solving but also more efficient problem solving. Psychometric theories focus on the validity of the assessment - does it measure what it purports to measure and reliability - are the outcomes of the assessment reproducible. Validity is currently seen as building a train of arguments of how best observations of behaviour (answering a multiple-choice question is also a behaviour) can be translated into scores and how these can be used at the end to make inferences about the construct of interest. Reliability theories can be categorised into classical test theory, generalisability theory and item response theory. All three approaches have specific advantages and disadvantages and different areas of application. Finally in the Guide, we discuss the phenomenon of assessment for learning as opposed to assessment of learning and its implications for current and future development and research.