ArticleBMC medical education2016
Certainty rating in pre-and post-tests of study modules in an online clinical pharmacy course - A pilot study to evaluate teaching and learning.
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Certainty-based marking in a formative assessment improves student course appreciation but not summative examination scores.BMC medical education · 2019Trial
- Development of Immediate Self-Feedback Very Short Answer Questions: Implementing Testlet Response Theory in Formative Examinations Across Multiple Occasions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- The Effect of the Question Mark Option in Progress Testing: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Comparison of Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) and Number Right Scoring (NRS) in Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessments: A Prospective Cohort Study of Second-Year Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Focused anatomy workshops for clerkships and the USMLE Step 1 examination.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Development and validation of immediate self-feedback very short answer questions for medical students: practical implementation of generalizability theory to estimate reliability in formative examination designs.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The Effectiveness of a Self-Directed e-Learning Module on Trainee Knowledge and Confidence during Plastic Surgery Clinical Rotations.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Impact of a teaching strategy to promote evidence-based practice on nursing students' knowledge and confidence in simulated clinical intervention choices.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- The Reliability and Medical Students' Appreciation of Certainty-Based Marking.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Knowledge self-monitoring, efficiency, and determinants of self-confidence statement in multiple choice questions in medical students.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine Online Learning Intervention for Oncology Healthcare Providers: A Mixed-Methods Study.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGraduate and post-graduate education for health professionals is increasingly delivered in an e-learning environment, where automated, continuous formative testing with integrated feedback can guide students' self-assessment and learning. Asking students to rate the certainty they assign to the correctness of their answers to test questions can potentially provide deeper insights into the success of teaching, with test results informing course designers whether learning outcomes have been achieved. It may also have implications for decision making in clinical practice.
methodsA study of pre-and post-tests for five study modules was designed to evaluate the teaching and learning within a pharmacotherapeutic course in an online postgraduate clinical pharmacy program. Certainty based marking of multiple choice questions (MCQ) was adapted for formative pre- and post-study module testing by asking students to rate their certainty of correctness of MCQ answers. Paired t-tests and a coding scheme were used to analyse changes in answers and certainty between pre-and post-tests. A survey evaluated students' experience with the novel formative testing design.
resultsTwenty-nine pharmacists enrolled in the postgraduate program participated in the study. Overall 1315 matched pairs of MCQ answers and certainty ratings between pre- and post-module tests were available for evaluation. Most students identified correct answers in post-tests and increased their certainty compared to pre-tests. Evaluation of certainty ratings in addition to correctness of answers identified MCQs and topic areas for revision to course designers. A survey of students showed that assigning certainty ratings to their answers assisted in structuring and focusing their learning throughout online study modules, facilitating identification of areas of uncertainty and gaps in their clinical knowledge.
conclusionsAdding certainty ratings to MCQ answers seems to engage students with formative testing and feedback and focus their learning in a web-based postgraduate pharmacy course. It also offers deeper insight into the successful delivery of online course content, identifying areas for improvement of teaching and content delivery as well as test question design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.