Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24195696›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2013

An exploratory study into the effect of time-restricted internet access on face-validity, construct validity and reliability of postgraduate knowledge progress testing.

Marja G K Dijksterhuis, Izabela Jozwiak, Didi D M Braat, Fedde Scheele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marja G K DijksterhuisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Langendijk 75, 4819 EV, Breda, The Netherlands. mgk.dijksterhuis@gmail.com.
Izabela Jozwiak
Didi D M Braat
Fedde Scheele

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYearly formative knowledge testing (also known as progress testing) was shown to have a limited construct-validity and reliability in postgraduate medical education. One way to improve construct-validity and reliability is to improve the authenticity of a test. As easily accessible internet has become inseparably linked to daily clinical practice, we hypothesized that allowing internet access for a limited amount of time during the progress test would improve the perception of authenticity (face-validity) of the test, which would in turn improve the construct-validity and reliability of postgraduate progress testing.

methodsPostgraduate trainees taking the yearly knowledge progress test were asked to participate in a study where they could access the internet for 30 minutes at the end of a traditional pen and paper test. Before and after the test they were asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding the face-validity of the test.

resultsMean test scores increased significantly for all training years. Trainees indicated that the face-validity of the test improved with internet access and that they would like to continue to have internet access during future testing. Internet access did not improve the construct-validity or reliability of the test.

conclusionImproving the face-validity of postgraduate progress testing, by adding the possibility to search the internet for a limited amount of time, positively influences test performance and face-validity. However, it did not change the reliability or the construct-validity of the test.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementGynecologyHumansInternetInternship and ResidencyNetherlandsObstetricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24195696
PMCPMC4228367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.