A model of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment in medical education

It has become axiomatic that assessment impacts powerfully on student learning. However, surprisingly little research has been published emanating from authentic higher education settings about the nature and mechanism of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment. Less still emanates from health sciences education settings. This study explored the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment in theoretical modules by exploring the variables at play in a multifaceted assessment system and the relationships between them. Using a grounded theory strategy, in-depth interviews were conducted with individual medical students and analyzed qualitatively. Respondents’ learning was influenced by task demands and system design. Assessment impacted on respondents’ cognitive processing activities and metacognitive regulation activities. Individually, our findings confirm findings from other studies in disparate non-medical settings and identify some new factors at play in this setting. Taken together, findings from this study provide, for the first time, some insight into how a whole assessment system influences student learning over time in a medical education setting. The findings from this authentic and complex setting paint a nuanced picture of how intricate and multifaceted interactions between various factors in an assessment system interact to influence student learning. A model linking the sources, mechanism and consequences of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment is proposed that could help enhance the use of summative assessment as a tool to augment learning

Modelling the pre-assessment learning effects of assessment : evidence in the validity chain

Publication of this article was funded by the Stellenbosch University Open Access Fund.The original publication is available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291365-2923/OBJECTIVES We previously developed a model of the pre-assessment learning effects of consequential assessment and started to validate it. The model comprises assessment factors, mechanism factors and learning effects. The purpose of this study was to continue the validation process. For stringency, we focused on a subset of assessment factor–learning effect associations that featured least commonly in a baseline qualitative study. Our aims were to determine whether these uncommon associations were operational in a broader but similar population to that in which the model was initially derived. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of 361 senior medical students at one medical school was undertaken using a purpose-made questionnaire based on a grounded theory and comprising pairs of written situational tests. In each pair, the manifestation of an assessment factor was varied. The frequencies at which learning effects were selected were compared for each item pair, using an adjusted alpha to assign significance. The frequencies at which mechanism factors were selected were calculated. RESULTS There were significant differences in the learning effect selected between the two scenarios of an item pair for 13 of this subset of 21 uncommon associations, even when a p-value of < 0.00625 was considered to indicate significance. Three mechanism factors were operational in most scenarios: agency; response efficacy, and response value. CONCLUSIONS For a subset of uncommon associations in the model, the role of most assessment factor–learning effect associations and the mechanism factors involved were supported in a broader but similar population to that in which the model was derived. Although model validation is an ongoing process, these results move the model one step closer to the stage of usefully informing interventions. Results illustrate how factors not typically included in studies of the learning effects of assessment could confound the results of interventions aimed at using assessment to influence learning.Stellenbosch UniversityPublishers' Versio

Comparison of formula and number-right scoring in undergraduate medical training: a Rasch model analysis

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Progress testing is an assessment tool used to periodically assess all students at the end-of-curriculum level. Because students cannot know everything, it is important that they recognize their lack of knowledge. For that reason, the formula-scoring method has usually been used. However, where partial knowledge needs to be taken into account, the number-right scoring method is used. Research comparing both methods has yielded conflicting results. As far as we know, in all these studies, Classical Test Theory or Generalizability Theory was used to analyze the data. In contrast to these studies, we will explore the use of the Rasch model to compare both methods. Methods A 2 × 2 crossover design was used in a study where 298 students from four medical schools participated. A sample of 200 previously used questions from the progress tests was selected. The data were analyzed using the Rasch model, which provides fit parameters, reliability coefficients, and response option analysis. Results The fit parameters were in the optimal interval ranging from 0.50 to 1.50, and the means were around 1.00. The person and item reliability coefficients were higher in the number-right condition than in the formula-scoring condition. The response option analysis showed that the majority of dysfunctional items emerged in the formula-scoring condition. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of number-right scoring over formula scoring. Rasch model analyses showed that tests with number-right scoring have better psychometric properties than formula scoring. However, choosing the appropriate scoring method should depend not only on psychometric properties but also on self-directed test-taking strategies and metacognitive skills

Contextual factors and clinical reasoning: differences in diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning in board certified versus resident physicians

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background The impact of context on the complex process of clinical reasoning is not well understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework and videos to provide the same contextual “stimulus” to all participants, we examined the relationship between specific contextual factors on diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning accuracy in board certified internists versus resident physicians. Methods Each participant viewed three videotaped clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses in internal medicine. We explicitly modified the context to assess its impact on performance (patient and physician contextual factors). Patient contextual factors, including English as a second language and emotional volatility, were portrayed in the videos. Physician participant contextual factors were self-rated sleepiness and burnout.. The accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning was compared with covariates using Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman Rho’s correlations as appropriate. Results Fifteen board certified internists and 10 resident physicians participated from 2013 to 2014. Accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning did not differ between groups despite residents reporting significantly higher rates of sleepiness (mean rank 20.45 vs 8.03, U = 0.5, p < .001) and burnout (mean rank 20.50 vs 8.00, U = 0.0, p < .001). Accuracy of diagnosis and treatment were uncorrelated (r = 0.17, p = .65). In both groups, the proportion scoring correct responses for treatment was higher than the proportion scoring correct responses for diagnosis. Conclusions This study underscores that specific contextual factors appear to impact clinical reasoning performance. Further, the processes of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, although related, may not be interchangeable. This raises important questions about the impact that contextual factors have on clinical reasoning and provides insight into how clinical reasoning processes in more authentic settings may be explained by situated cognition theory

Changing the culture of assessment: the dominance of the summative assessment paradigm

Background Despite growing evidence of the benefits of including assessment for learning strategies within programmes of assessment, practical implementation of these approaches is often problematical. Organisational culture change is often hindered by personal and collective beliefs which encourage adherence to the existing organisational paradigm. We aimed to explore how these beliefs influenced proposals to redesign a summative assessment culture in order to improve students’ use of assessment-related feedback. Methods Using the principles of participatory design, a mixed group comprising medical students, clinical teachers and senior faculty members was challenged to develop radical solutions to improve the use of post-assessment feedback. Follow-up interviews were conducted with individual members of the group to explore their personal beliefs about the proposed redesign. Data were analysed using a socio-cultural lens. Results Proposed changes were dominated by a shared belief in the primacy of the summative assessment paradigm, which prevented radical redesign solutions from being accepted by group members. Participants’ prior assessment experiences strongly influenced proposals for change. As participants had largely only experienced a summative assessment culture, they found it difficult to conceptualise radical change in the assessment culture. Although all group members participated, students were less successful at persuading the group to adopt their ideas. Faculty members and clinical teachers often used indirect techniques to close down discussions. The strength of individual beliefs became more apparent in the follow-up interviews. Conclusions Naïve epistemologies and prior personal experiences were influential in the assessment redesign but were usually not expressed explicitly in a group setting, perhaps because of cultural conventions of politeness. In order to successfully implement a change in assessment culture, firmly-held intuitive beliefs about summative assessment will need to be clearly understood as a first step