ArticleKorean journal of medical education2020
Evaluation of usefulness of smart device-based testing: a survey study of Korean medical students.
Article in Korean journal of medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Student Satisfaction with Ubiquitous-Based Tests in Women's Health Nursing Course.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to understand the characteristics of smart device-based testing (SBT) by comparing the typical characteristics of students' satisfaction with SBT, its usefulness, advantages, and disadvantages when compared with existing testing methods.
methodsA total of 250 students from the first to third year were selected as the final targets of the study and the questionnaire was developed by faculty members who participated in the survey from the start of the SBT. The total number of questions is 12, and the questionnaire used a 4-point scale. The data obtained were analyzed using the IBM SPSS ver. 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA).
resultsAnswers to the "satisfaction with SBT" were generally negative, while answers to the "usefulness of SBT" were generally positive. There was no difference in satisfaction across gender and smart device ownership, whereas there were significant differences across years. With reference to the usefulness of SBT, students responded positively, while about the overall configuration and completeness of SBT, students responded negatively. Students also seemed to show a greater preference toward the pencil-paper test.
conclusionOn the other hand, students generally thought that SBT helped to assess medical knowledge better and was a more objective method of knowledge assessment than a pencil-paper test. We believe that students preferred the traditional paper-pencil test due to their unfamiliarity with SBT. We believe that an appropriate and careful remedy for drawbacks of the SBT will have a significant impact in the accumulation of actual clinical knowledge and in the improvement of practical skills for medical students.
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.