Dataset Information

Medical Student Evaluation With a Serious Game Compared to Multiple Choice Questions Assessment.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The gold standard for evaluating medical students' knowledge is by multiple choice question (MCQs) tests: an objective and effective means of restituting book-based knowledge. However, concerns have been raised regarding their effectiveness to evaluate global medical skills. Furthermore, MCQs of unequal difficulty can generate frustration and may also lead to a sizable proportion of close results with low score variability. Serious games (SG) have recently been introduced to better evaluate students' medical skills. OBJECTIVES:The study aimed to compare MCQs with SG for medical student evaluation. METHODS:We designed a cross-over randomized study including volunteer medical students from two medical schools in Paris (France) from January to September 2016. The students were randomized into two groups and evaluated either by the SG first and then the MCQs, or vice-versa, for a cardiology clinical case. The primary endpoint was score variability evaluated by variance comparison. Secondary endpoints were differences in and correlation between the MCQ and SG results, and student satisfaction. RESULTS:A total of 68 medical students were included. The score variability was significantly higher in the SG group (?2 =265.4) than the MCQs group (?2=140.2; P=.009). The mean score was significantly lower for the SG than the MCQs at 66.1 (SD 16.3) and 75.7 (SD 11.8) points out of 100, respectively (P<.001). No correlation was found between the two test results (R2=0.04, P=.58). The self-reported satisfaction was significantly higher for SG (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests that SGs are more effective in terms of score variability than MCQs. In addition, they are associated with a higher student satisfaction rate. SGs could represent a new evaluation modality for medical students.

SUBMITTER: Adjedj J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5449650 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medical Student Evaluation With a Serious Game Compared to Multiple Choice Questions Assessment.

Adjedj Julien J Ducrocq Gregory G Bouleti Claire C Reinhart Louise L Fabbro Eleonora E Elbez Yedid Y Fischer Quentin Q Tesniere Antoine A Feldman Laurent L Varenne Olivier O

JMIR serious games 20170516 2

<h4>Background</h4>The gold standard for evaluating medical students' knowledge is by multiple choice question (MCQs) tests: an objective and effective means of restituting book-based knowledge. However, concerns have been raised regarding their effectiveness to evaluate global medical skills. Furthermore, MCQs of unequal difficulty can generate frustration and may also lead to a sizable proportion of close results with low score variability. Serious games (SG) have recently been introduced to b ...[more]

PMID: 28512082

Similar Datasets

Project description:Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open-ended questions requiring a very short answer, may circumvent these limitations. Although VSAQ use in medical assessment increases, almost all research on reliability and validity of VSAQs in medical education has been performed by a single research group with extensive experience in the development of VSAQs. Therefore, we aimed to validate previous findings about VSAQ reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students and teachers with limited experience in VSAQs development. To validate the results presented in previous studies, we partially replicated a previous study and extended results on student experiences. Dutch undergraduate medical students (n = 375) were randomized to VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in a formative exam in two courses, to determine reliability, discrimination, and cueing. Acceptability for teachers (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Reliability (Cronbach's α) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach's α was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (average Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ±2 minutes on average. Positive cueing occurred more in MCQs than in VSAQs (20% vs. 4% and 20.8% vs. 8.3% of questions per person in both courses). This study validates the positive results regarding VSAQs reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VSAQ use is reliable among teachers with limited experience in writing and marking VSAQs. The short learning curve for teachers, favourable marking time and applicability regardless of the topic suggest that VSAQs might also be valuable beyond medical assessment.

Dataset Information

Medical Student Evaluation With a Serious Game Compared to Multiple Choice Questions Assessment.

Publications

Medical Student Evaluation With a Serious Game Compared to Multiple Choice Questions Assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets