Suppr超能文献

[2016年6月法国首次医学计算机化全国排名考试后最终成绩的区分度分析]

[Analysis of the discrimination of the final marks after the first computerized national ranking exam in Medicine in June 2016 in France].

作者信息

Rivière E, Quinton A, Dehail P

机构信息

Service de médecine interne et maladies infectieuses, hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU de Bordeaux, 33600 Pessac, France; Centre de recherche appliquée aux méthodes éducatives (CRAME), université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France; Conférences de préparation aux ECN, université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France; UFR des sciences médicales, université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France.

Centre de recherche appliquée aux méthodes éducatives (CRAME), université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France; UFR des sciences médicales, université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France.

出版信息

Rev Med Interne. 2019 May;40(5):286-290. doi: 10.1016/j.revmed.2018.10.386. Epub 2019 Mar 19.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The first computerised national ranking exam (cNRE) in Medicine was introduced in June 2016 for 8214 students. It was made of 18 progressive clinical cases (PCCs) with multiple choice questions (MCQs), 120 independent MCQs and 2 scientific articles to criticize. A lack of mark discrimination grounded the cNRE reform. We aimed to assess the discrimination of the final marks after this first cNRE.

METHODS

A national Excel file gathering overall statistics and marks were transmitted to the medical faculties after the cNRE. The mean points deviation between two papers and the percentage of points ranking 75% of students allowed us to analyse marks' discrimination.

RESULTS

The national distribution sigmoid curve of the marks is superimposable with previous NRE in 2015. In PCCs, 72% of students were ranked in 1090 points out of 7560 (14%). In independents MCQs, 73% of students were ranked in 434 points out of 2160 (20%). In critical analysis of articles, 75% of students were ranked in 225 points out of 1080 (21%). The above percentages of students are on the plateau of each discrimination curve for PCCs, independent MCQs and critical analysis of scientific articles.

CONCLUSION

The cNRE reduced equally-ranked students compared to 2015, with a mean deviation between two papers of 0.28 in 2016 vs 0.04 in 2015. Despite the new format introduced by the cNRE, 75% of students are still ranked in a low proportion of points that is equivalent to previous NRE in 2015 (between 15 et 20% of points).

摘要

引言

2016年6月,针对8214名学生推出了首个医学领域的计算机化全国排名考试(cNRE)。该考试由18个递进式临床病例(PCCs)及多项选择题(MCQs)、120道独立多项选择题和2篇需进行批判性分析的科学文章组成。cNRE改革的原因是缺乏分数区分度。我们旨在评估首次cNRE后最终分数的区分度。

方法

cNRE结束后,一个收集了总体统计数据和分数的全国性Excel文件被发送至各医学院。两篇试卷之间的平均分数偏差以及75%学生的分数排名百分比使我们能够分析分数的区分度。

结果

分数的全国分布S形曲线与2015年之前的全国排名考试(NRE)重叠。在PCCs中,72%的学生在7560分中的1090分(14%)范围内排名。在独立多项选择题中,73%的学生在2160分中的434分(20%)范围内排名。在文章批判性分析中,75%的学生在1080分中的225分(21%)范围内排名。上述学生百分比处于PCCs、独立多项选择题和科学文章批判性分析各自区分度曲线的平稳段。

结论

与2015年相比,cNRE减少了分数相同的学生数量,2016年两篇试卷之间的平均偏差为0.28,而2015年为0.04。尽管cNRE引入了新形式,但75%的学生仍在与2015年之前的NRE相当的低分数比例范围内排名(分数的15%至20%之间)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验