Nalini Y C, Manivasakan Shivasakthy, Pai Dinker R
PhD Scholar, Health Professions Education (HPE), Institute of Health Professions Education (IHPE), Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pondicherry - Cuddalore Road, Pillayarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
Department of Physiology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pondicherry - Cuddalore Road, Pillayarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2024 Oct-Dec;14(4):246-251. doi: 10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_293_24. Epub 2024 Nov 1.
Although the curriculum has changed, assessment tools are not in alignment with the new types of teaching such as early clinical exposure (ECE) and self-directed learning. Both in summative and formative assessment most commonly used tools for assessment of cognitive domain are written formats including MCQ. However, these assessment tools such as MCQ and written essays cannot assess the higher order thinking skills and clinical reasoning skills.
The present study was conducted in the department of physiology, in collaboration with medical simulation center, as a part of formative assessment for topics on pathophysiology of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders taught during ECE using case scenarios. Two script concordance tests (SCTs) each on the topic of pathophysiological mechanism of different types of shock and obstructive and restrictive lung disorders each were prepared and administered to the students. Student perception to this assessment tools was obtained.
The Cronbach's alpha of the 6-item SCT for respiratory and cardiovascular topic administered to the students ( = 107, 98) was 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The inter-item correlation was respiratory and cardiovascular topic for 0.71, 0.69 suggesting that they are close and repetitive. Students were of the opinion that SCT are difficult to understand (75.8%), challenging to answer (47.2%), and it tested the clinical content better (71.4%).
In our study, students felt though SCT tested the clinical content better when compared to conventionally used MCQ, they still find it challenging to understand and are not in favor of its use in summative and formative assessments.
尽管课程已经发生了变化，但评估工具与早期临床接触（ECE）和自主学习等新型教学方式并不匹配。在总结性评估和形成性评估中，用于评估认知领域最常用的工具都是包括多项选择题（MCQ）在内的书面形式。然而，这些评估工具，如MCQ和书面论文，无法评估高阶思维技能和临床推理技能。
本研究在生理学系与医学模拟中心合作开展，作为对在ECE期间使用案例场景教授的休克病理生理学以及阻塞性和限制性肺部疾病等主题进行形成性评估的一部分。针对不同类型休克以及阻塞性和限制性肺部疾病的病理生理机制主题，分别编制并向学生发放了两份脚本一致性测试（SCT）。收集了学生对该评估工具的看法。
发放给学生的关于呼吸和心血管主题的6项SCT的Cronbach's alpha系数（n = 107，98）分别为0.83和0.82。呼吸和心血管主题的项目间相关性分别为0.71、0.69，表明它们紧密且重复。学生们认为SCT难以理解（75.8%）、回答具有挑战性（47.2%），但能更好地测试临床内容（71.4%）。
在我们的研究中，学生们觉得尽管与传统使用的MCQ相比，SCT能更好地测试临床内容，但他们仍然觉得难以理解，并且不赞成在总结性评估和形成性评估中使用它。
