• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Tablet versus paper marking in assessment: feedback matters.评估中平板电脑评分与纸质评分的比较:反馈很重要。
Perspect Med Educ. 2016 Apr;5(2):108-113. doi: 10.1007/s40037-016-0262-8.
2
Usability and preference of electronic vs. paper and pencil OSCE checklists by examiners and influence of checklist type on missed ratings in the Swiss Federal Licensing Exam.考官对电子与纸笔式客观结构化临床考试检查表的易用性和偏好,以及检查表类型对瑞士联邦执照考试中漏评的影响。
GMS J Med Educ. 2022 Apr 14;39(2):Doc24. doi: 10.3205/zma001545. eCollection 2022.
3
Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE.将书面结构化反馈纳入外科客观结构化临床考试。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Apr 6;21(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02581-3.
4
Paper versus electronic feedback in high stakes assessment.高风险评估中的纸质反馈与电子反馈
J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018 Jun;48(2):148-152. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2018.209.
5
Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback.客观结构化临床考试后的反馈:面对面反馈与强化书面反馈的比较
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Mar 24;21(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z.
6
The efficacy of peer assessment in objective structured clinical examinations for formative feedback: a preliminary study.同伴评估在形成性反馈的客观结构化临床考试中的效果:初步研究。
Korean J Med Educ. 2020 Mar;32(1):59-65. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2020.153. Epub 2020 Mar 1.
7
The objective structured clinical examination: can physician-examiners participate from a distance?客观结构化临床考试:医师考官能否远程参与?
Med Educ. 2014 Apr;48(4):441-50. doi: 10.1111/medu.12326.
8
Computer assisted Objective structured clinical examination versus Objective structured clinical examination in assessment of Dermatology undergraduate students.计算机辅助客观结构化临床考试与客观结构化临床考试在皮肤科本科学生评估中的比较
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2017 Jul-Aug;83(4):448-452. doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_587_16.
9
Senior medical students as peer examiners in an OSCE.医学生在 OSCE 中担任同侪考官。
Med Teach. 2013;35(1):58-62. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.731101. Epub 2012 Oct 26.
10
A digital resource to assess clinical competency.一种用于评估临床能力的数字资源。
Clin Teach. 2020 Apr;17(2):153-158. doi: 10.1111/tct.13030. Epub 2019 May 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment in Undergraduate Competency-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review.本科医学教育能力本位评估:一项系统综述
Cureus. 2024 Apr 11;16(4):e58073. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58073. eCollection 2024 Apr.
2
Development and Implementation of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) of the Subject of Surgery for Undergraduate Students in an Institution with Limited Resources.资源有限院校本科外科专业客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)的开发与实施
MedEdPublish (2016). 2021 Apr 21;10:97. doi: 10.15694/mep.2021.000097.1. eCollection 2021.
3
Usability and preference of electronic vs. paper and pencil OSCE checklists by examiners and influence of checklist type on missed ratings in the Swiss Federal Licensing Exam.考官对电子与纸笔式客观结构化临床考试检查表的易用性和偏好,以及检查表类型对瑞士联邦执照考试中漏评的影响。
GMS J Med Educ. 2022 Apr 14;39(2):Doc24. doi: 10.3205/zma001545. eCollection 2022.
4
Using mobile technology to enhance medical student assessment.利用移动技术提升医学生评估。
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2017 Apr 5;3(2):77-78. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000188. eCollection 2017.
5
Effect of Detailed OSCE Score Reporting on Learning and Anxiety in Medical School.客观结构化临床考试详细分数报告对医学院校学习及焦虑的影响
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2021 Sep 14;8:2382120521992323. doi: 10.1177/2382120521992323. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
6
Integrating iPads into Team-Based Learning in the Pediatrics Clerkship: Do They Provide Any Value?将iPad融入儿科实习中的小组协作学习:它们有价值吗?
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020 Sep 11;7:2382120520957645. doi: 10.1177/2382120520957645. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
7
Medical assessment in the age of digitalisation.数字化时代的医学评估。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Mar 31;20(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02014-7.
8
i-Assess: Evaluating the impact of electronic data capture for OSCE.i-Assess:评估 OSCE 中电子数据采集的影响。
Perspect Med Educ. 2018 Apr;7(2):110-119. doi: 10.1007/s40037-018-0410-4.

评估中平板电脑评分与纸质评分的比较:反馈很重要。

Tablet versus paper marking in assessment: feedback matters.

作者信息

Denison Alan, Bate Emily, Thompson Jessica

机构信息

Institute of Education in Medical and Dental Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

出版信息

Perspect Med Educ. 2016 Apr;5(2):108-113. doi: 10.1007/s40037-016-0262-8.

DOI:10.1007/s40037-016-0262-8
PMID:26975742
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4839015/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a cornerstone in healthcare assessment. As a potential tool for providing learner-centred feedback on a large scale, the use of tablet devices has been proposed for the recording of OSCE marks, moving away from the traditional, paper-based checklist.

METHODS

Examiner-recorded comments were collated from successive first year formative and summative OSCE examinations, with paper-based checklists used in 2012 and iPad-based checklists used in 2013. A total of 558 and 498 examiner-candidate interactions took place in the January OSCE examinations, and 1402 and 1344 for the May OSCE examination for 2012 and 2013 respectively. Examiner comments were analyzed for quantity and quality. A tool was developed and validated to assess the quality of the comments left by examiners for use as feedback (Kappa = 0.625).

RESULTS

A direct comparison of paper-based checklists and iPad-recorded examinations showed an increase in the quantity of comments left from 41 to 51 % (+ 10 %). Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of comments left for students deemed 'borderline': + 22 %. In terms of the quality of the comments for feedback, there was a significant improvement (p < 0.001) between comments left in written-recorded and iPad-recorded examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

iPad-marked examinations resulted in a greater quantity and quality of examiner comment for use as feedback, particularly for students performing less well, enabling tutors to direct further learning for these students.

摘要

背景

客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)是医疗评估的基石。作为一种可能用于大规模提供以学习者为中心反馈的工具,有人提议使用平板电脑设备记录OSCE成绩,以取代传统的纸质检查表。

方法

整理了连续的一年级形成性和总结性OSCE考试中考官记录的评语,2012年使用纸质检查表,2013年使用基于iPad的检查表。在1月的OSCE考试中,2012年和2013年分别有558次和498次考官与考生的互动,5月的OSCE考试中分别有1402次和1344次。对考官评语的数量和质量进行了分析。开发并验证了一种工具,以评估考官留下的用作反馈的评语质量(卡帕系数=0.625)。

结果

纸质检查表与iPad记录考试的直接比较显示,留下的评语数量增加了41%至51%(增加了10%)。此外,给被认为“临界”的学生留下的评语数量增加了22%。在用于反馈的评语质量方面,书面记录考试和iPad记录考试留下的评语之间有显著改善(p<0.001)。

结论

iPad评分的考试产生了数量更多、质量更高的考官评语用作反馈,特别是对于表现较差的学生,使导师能够为这些学生指导进一步的学习。