Can computer-based assessment enhance the acceptance of formative multiple choice exams? A utility analysis

Karay, Yassin; Schauber, Stefan K.; Stosch, Christoph; Schuettpelz-Brauns, Katrin

doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652707

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, CBA can increase students' learning effect and acceptance of formative multiple-choice tests because immediate feedback about their answers (correct or incorrect) can be easily provided via CBA. 12 However, it is still unclear whether computer-based tests influence students' test scores. The results in this study show that this does not seem to be the case for the average student after controlling for differences in students' prior knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This change from pencil-paper to computer increased students' acceptance of the formative multiple-choice tests because they get immediate feedback on their answers and score. 12 Two years after the computer-based testing method was introduced, we analysed whether test results from the paper-based and the computer-based versions of the BPT differ. Performance was measured as the total test score (number of correct answers minus number of incorrect answers = T score ) and as the number of correct answers (C score ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computer Versus Paper—Does It Make Any Difference in Test Performance?

Karay

Schauber

Stosch

et al. 2015

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants in computer-based tests are not at a disadvantage in terms of their test results. The computer-based test required less processing time. The reason for the longer processing time when using the paper-pencil version might be due to the time needed to write the answer down, controlling for transferring the answer correctly. It is still not known why students using the computer version (particularly low-performing students) guess at a higher rate. Further studies are necessary to understand this finding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Versus Paper—Does It Make Any Difference in Test Performance?

Karay

Schauber

Stosch

et al. 2015

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors have discussed aspects of the practice of PrT as the type of questions, reference criteria, use of internet-based tools and costs McHarg et al, 2005;Rademakers et al, 2005;Muijtjens et al, 2010;Ricketts et al, 2010;Rickets et al, 2010b;Kerfoot et al, 2011;Karay et al, 2012). Several articles present procedures for the achievement of standards for the PrT.…”

Section: Instrument To Comparison (Between Curricula Methods Of Learmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate acceptance of formative assessment comparing computer-based with paper-based assessment (Karay et al, 2012) The PrT application in computed-based format was well accepted by the students.…”

Section: Practice To Application Of Prtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress test: A review to motivate their use in pharmacy schools in Brazil

Malta¹,

Machado²,

Shadeck³

et al. 2016

Afr. J. Pharm. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Progress Test (PrT) is a longitudinal assessment strategy in which tests composed of contents from all the curriculum are periodically applied to all students of a course. Such strategy allows measurement of deep, long-lasting meaningful learning as well as early detection and remediation of underperforming students. It was introduced more than forty years ago, and it has been used in several health schools in the world, especially medicine. Assessment of students' knowledge gain and its application over the course is a challenge. PrT has become a relevant method to monitor the development of the student through graduation. There is no culture of using longitudinal assessments in Brazil's pharmacyschools. This scenario is an opportunity for use of PrT. The objective of this work is to make a literature review about how progress test has been used in context of education. The authors also discuss the possibilities of PrT's application in Pharmacy undergraduate courses in Brazil. PrT has a long history of use by various institutions in the world. Most user experiences come from medical schools, but there are articles showing the application of PrT in dentistry and psychology schools. PrT has been shown to be an effective assessment tool in a problem-based (PBL) and traditional curricula. PrT is recommended as a tool to longitudinal assesses growth in knowledge. Phamacy schools may develop their own framework for PrT collaborations, which could optimize the educational utility of student's assessment instruments as tools to enhance learning.

show abstract

“…This CBA adoption growth arises from the decreasing cost of information technology equipment, and the development and availability of specific hardware and software solution. CBA allows the use of many different kinds of media, facilitates prompt and more timely feedback to both students and teachers [ 1 ], and enhances of the acceptance of formative exams [ 2 ], without affecting performance in comparison with paper-based assessments [ 3 ]. Furthermore, students’ perceptions of advantages of CBA outweigh any disadvantages [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-menu questions in computer-based assessments: a retrospective observational study

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComputer based assessments of paediatrics in our institution use series of clinical cases, where information is progressively delivered to the students in a sequential order. Three types of formats are mainly used: Type A (single answer), Pick N, and Long-menu. Long-menu questions require a long, hidden list of possible answers: based on the student’s initial free text response, the program narrows the list, allowing the student to select the answer. This study analyses the psychometric properties of Long-menu questions compared with the two other commonly used formats: Type A and Pick N.MethodsWe reviewed the difficulty level and discrimination index of the items in the paediatric exams from 2009 to 2015, and compared the Long-menu questions with the Type A and Pick N questions, using multiple-way analyses of variances.ResultsOur dataset included 13 exam sessions with 855 students and 558 items included in the analysis, 212 (38 %) Long-menu, 201 (36 %) Pick N, and 140 Type A (25 %) items. There was a significant format effect associated with both level of difficulty (p = .005) and discrimination index (p < .001). Long-menu questions were easier than Type A questions(+5.2 %; 95 % CI 1.1–9.4 %), and more discriminative than both Type A (+0.07; 95 % CI 0.01–0.14), and Pick N (+0.10; 95 % CI 0.05–0.16) questions.ConclusionsLong-menu questions show good psychometric properties when compared with more common formats such as Type A or Pick N, though confirmatory studies are needed. They provide more variety, reduce the cueing effect, and thus may more closely reflect real life practice than the other item formats inherited from paper-based examination that are used during computer-based assessments.

show abstract

Can computer-based assessment enhance the acceptance of formative multiple choice exams? A utility analysis

Abstract: Introduction of immediate feedback via CBA can enhance the acceptance and therefore the utility of formative assessment.

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Computer Versus Paper—Does It Make Any Difference in Test Performance?

Computer Versus Paper—Does It Make Any Difference in Test Performance?

Progress test: A review to motivate their use in pharmacy schools in Brazil

Long-menu questions in computer-based assessments: a retrospective observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About