• 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

医学生学业评估中的论述题考试:患者没有多项选择。

Patients don't come with multiple choice options: essay-based assessment in UME.

机构信息

Department of Science Education, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell , Hempstead , NY , USA.

Curricular Integration and Assessment, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell , Hempstead , NY , USA.

出版信息

Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1649959. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1649959.

DOI:10.1080/10872981.2019.1649959
PMID:31438809
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6720218/
Abstract

Curricular revision efforts have resulted in learner-centered programs that value content integration and active learning. Yet, less attention has been placed on assessment methods that are learner-centered and promote assessment for learning. The use of context rich short answer question (CR-SAQ) exams in the preclinical years of medical school was evaluated to determine if this format aligns with the criteria for assessment for learning. Medical students and preclinical faculty members were sent a survey comprised of closed and open-ended questions about their experience using CR-SAQ exams. Data were analyzed using a mixed-method design. Open-ended responses were evaluated using thematic analysis within the framework of criteria for assessment  learning. A total of 274 students (94%) and 24 faculty (75%) completed the survey. Fifty four percent of students reported preferring a CR-SAQ exam format over multiple choice questions (MCQ) format. Quantitative data and qualitative comments by students supported that CR-SAQ exams aligned with criteria for assessment  learning, including acceptability, authenticity, educational effect, and the cueing effect. Student concerns included preparation for USMLE Step 1 exam, as well as the validity and reproducibility of CR-SAQ assessments. Faculty largely agreed with the benefits of the CR-SAQ, but were concerned about feasibility, acceptability and reproducibility. The CR-SAQ exam format assessment strategy supports assessment for learning in an undergraduate medical education setting. Both benefits and drawbacks of this method are presented, however students and faculty describe a broader impact that this assessment method has on their development as a physician.

摘要

课程修订工作已经产生了以学习者为中心的课程,这些课程重视内容整合和主动学习。然而,对于以学习者为中心、促进学习评估的评估方法的关注较少。本研究旨在评估在医学院基础医学阶段使用基于情境的简答题(CR-SAQ)考试,以确定这种形式是否符合学习评估的标准。向医学生和基础医学教师发送了一份包含封闭式和开放式问题的调查,了解他们使用 CR-SAQ 考试的经验。使用混合方法设计分析数据。在学习评估标准的框架内,对开放式回答进行主题分析评估。共有 274 名学生(94%)和 24 名教师(75%)完成了调查。54%的学生表示更喜欢 CR-SAQ 考试形式而不是多项选择题(MCQ)形式。学生的定量数据和定性意见支持 CR-SAQ 考试符合学习评估的标准,包括可接受性、真实性、教育效果和提示效果。学生关注的问题包括为 USMLE 第 1 步考试做准备,以及 CR-SAQ 评估的有效性和可重复性。教师基本上同意 CR-SAQ 的好处,但对其可行性、可接受性和可重复性表示担忧。CR-SAQ 考试形式的评估策略支持本科医学教育中的学习评估。本文介绍了这种方法的优缺点,但学生和教师描述了这种评估方法对他们作为医生发展的更广泛影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/09b1/6720218/ad3e65f5f1c1/ZMEO_A_1649959_F0002_B.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/09b1/6720218/54b2505e7950/ZMEO_A_1649959_F0001_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/09b1/6720218/ad3e65f5f1c1/ZMEO_A_1649959_F0002_B.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/09b1/6720218/54b2505e7950/ZMEO_A_1649959_F0001_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/09b1/6720218/ad3e65f5f1c1/ZMEO_A_1649959_F0002_B.jpg

相似文献

1
Patients don't come with multiple choice options: essay-based assessment in UME.医学生学业评估中的论述题考试:患者没有多项选择。
Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1649959. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1649959.
2
A Multi-institutional Study of the Feasibility and Reliability of the Implementation of Constructed Response Exam Questions.多机构研究构建反应考试问题实施的可行性和可靠性。
Teach Learn Med. 2023 Oct-Dec;35(5):609-622. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2022.2111571. Epub 2022 Aug 20.
3
What have we learned about constructed response short-answer questions from students and faculty? A multi-institutional study.我们从学生和教师那里了解到了哪些关于构造性反应简答题的信息?一项多机构研究。
Med Teach. 2024 Mar;46(3):349-358. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2249209. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
4
On being examined: do students and faculty agree?经检查后:学生和教师意见一致吗?
Adv Physiol Educ. 2015 Dec;39(4):320-6. doi: 10.1152/advan.00078.2015.
5
Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?论文及其他“开放式”问题在临床医学书面总结性评估中是否应保留一席之地?
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2.
6
Formative student-authored question bank: perceptions, question quality and association with summative performance.形成性学生自主命题题库:认知、问题质量与总结性表现的关联。
Postgrad Med J. 2018 Feb;94(1108):97-103. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135018. Epub 2017 Sep 2.
7
Augmenting Fellow Education Through Spaced Multiple-Choice Questions.通过间隔多项选择题加强住院医师培训
Mil Med. 2018 Jan 1;183(1-2):e122-e126. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usx020.
8
Answering questions in a co-created formative exam question bank improves summative exam performance, while students perceive benefits from answering, authoring, and peer discussion: A mixed methods analysis of PeerWise.在共同创建的形成性考试题库中回答问题可以提高总结性考试成绩,而学生从回答、创作和同伴讨论中受益:PeerWise 的混合方法分析。
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2021 Aug;9(4):e00833. doi: 10.1002/prp2.833.
9
Developing and evaluating the student assessment system in the preclinical problem-based curriculum at Sherbrooke.在舍布鲁克大学基于问题的临床前课程中开发和评估学生评估系统。
Acad Med. 1996 Mar;71(3):274-83. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199603000-00021.
10
Assessment to Optimize Learning Strategies: A Qualitative Study of Student and Faculty Perceptions.学习策略优化评估:学生和教师感知的定性研究。
Teach Learn Med. 2021 Jun-Jul;33(3):245-257. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1852940. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Delving into the Practical Applications and Pitfalls of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Narrative Review.深入探讨大语言模型在医学教育中的实际应用与陷阱:叙述性综述
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025 Apr 18;16:625-636. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S497020. eCollection 2025.
2
Integrating Higher-Order Multiple-Choice Questions into Medical Education: How Best to Support Students for Change?将高阶多项选择题融入医学教育:如何最好地支持学生做出改变?
Med Sci Educ. 2024 Sep 9;35(1):587-588. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02164-z. eCollection 2025 Feb.
3
The Predictive Power of Short Answer Questions in Undergraduate Medical Education Progress Difficulty.

本文引用的文献

1
Very-short-answer questions: reliability, discrimination and acceptability.简答题:信度、区分度和可接受性。
Med Educ. 2018 Apr;52(4):447-455. doi: 10.1111/medu.13504. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
2
Back from basics: integration of science and practice in medical education.回归基础:医学教育中科学与实践的整合。
Med Educ. 2018 Jan;52(1):78-85. doi: 10.1111/medu.13386. Epub 2017 Oct 10.
3
Validity of very short answer versus single best answer questions for undergraduate assessment.本科评估中极简短回答题与单项最佳答案题的效度。
本科医学教育进展难度中简答题的预测能力
Med Sci Educ. 2024 Dec 4;35(1):351-358. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02197-4. eCollection 2025 Feb.
4
A novel resident physician examination using clinical simulation video to assess clinical competence in Japan: a cross-sectional study.一种使用临床模拟视频评估日本住院医师临床能力的新方法:一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Nov 30;24(1):1402. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06395-x.
5
Performance of ChatGPT in emergency medicine residency exams in Qatar: A comparative analysis with resident physicians.ChatGPT在卡塔尔急诊医学住院医师考试中的表现:与住院医师的比较分析。
Qatar Med J. 2024 Nov 11;2024(4):61. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2024.61. eCollection 2024.
6
Question banks: credit? Or debit? A qualitative exploration of their use among medical students.题库:信用?还是负债?对医学生使用题库的定性探索。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 May 24;24(1):569. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05517-9.
7
Giving a Voice to Patients With Smell Disorders Associated With COVID-19: Cross-Sectional Longitudinal Analysis Using Natural Language Processing of Self-Reports.为 COVID-19 相关嗅觉障碍患者发声:使用自我报告的自然语言处理进行的横断面纵向分析。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 May 10;10:e47064. doi: 10.2196/47064.
8
Efficacy of Google Form-based MCQ tests for formative assessment in medical biochemistry education.基于谷歌表单的多项选择题测试在医学生物化学教育形成性评估中的效果。
J Educ Health Promot. 2024 Mar 28;13:92. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_981_23. eCollection 2024.
9
Development of a Clinical Simulation Video to Evaluate Multiple Domains of Clinical Competence: Cross-Sectional Study.开发临床模拟视频以评估多个临床能力领域:横断面研究。
JMIR Med Educ. 2024 Feb 29;10:e54401. doi: 10.2196/54401.
10
Back to basics: reflective take on role of MCQs in undergraduate Malaysian dental professional qualifying exams.回归基础:对马来西亚本科牙科专业资格考试中多项选择题作用的反思
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Nov 30;10:1287924. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1287924. eCollection 2023.
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Oct 13;16(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0793-z.
4
Focusing on the Formative: Building an Assessment System Aimed at Student Growth and Development.聚焦形成性评价:构建旨在促进学生成长与发展的评估体系。
Acad Med. 2016 Nov;91(11):1492-1497. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001171.
5
Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?论文及其他“开放式”问题在临床医学书面总结性评估中是否应保留一席之地?
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 28;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2.
6
Automated essay scoring and the future of educational assessment in medical education.自动作文评分与医学教育中教育评估的未来。
Med Educ. 2014 Oct;48(10):950-62. doi: 10.1111/medu.12517.
7
Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning.计划性评估:从学习评估到学习促进评估。
Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-85. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828.
8
Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference.好的评估标准:来自渥太华 2010 会议的共识声明和建议。
Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-14. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.551559.
9
The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention.检索练习在长期保持中的关键作用。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jan;15(1):20-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003. Epub 2010 Oct 15.
10
Methods to assess students' acquisition, application and integration of basic science knowledge in an innovative competency-based curriculum.在基于创新能力的课程中评估学生对基础科学知识的掌握、应用和整合的方法。
Med Teach. 2008;30(7):e171-7. doi: 10.1080/01421590802139740.