Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33213443›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

Knowledge self-monitoring, efficiency, and determinants of self-confidence statement in multiple choice questions in medical students.

Nahid Tabibzadeh, Jimmy Mullaert, Lara Zafrani, Pauline Balagny, Justine Frija-Masson, Stéphanie Marin, Agnès Lefort, Emmanuelle Vidal-Petiot, Martin Flamant

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nahid TabibzadehPhysiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, FHU APOLLO, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université de Paris, CRI, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France. nahid.tabibzadeh@inserm.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-0163
Jimmy MullaertBiostatistics, Epidemiology and Clinical Research Department, APHP Hôpital Bichat, Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France.
Lara ZafraniIntensive Care Unit, APHP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université de Paris, UMR 976, INSERM, F-75010, Paris, France.
Pauline BalagnyPhysiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, FHU APOLLO, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université de Paris, CRI, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France.
Justine Frija-MassonPhysiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, FHU APOLLO, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université de Paris, Neurodiderot, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France.
Stéphanie MarinDepartment of Educational Sciences in the Dean's office, Faculté de Médecine, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France.
Agnès LefortDepartment of Internal Medicine, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Beaujon, Université de Paris, iLumens Paris-Diderot Simulation Department, IAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, F-75018, France.
Emmanuelle Vidal-PetiotPhysiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, FHU APOLLO, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université de Paris, CRI, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France.
Martin FlamantPhysiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, FHU APOLLO, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université de Paris, CRI, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France. martin.flamant@aphp.fr.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRInserm · FRDélégation Paris 7 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple-choice question (MCQ) tests are commonly used to evaluate medical students, but they do not assess self-confidence nor penalize lucky guess or harmful behaviors. Based on a scoring method according to the appropriateness of confidence in answers, the study aimed at assessing knowledge self-monitoring and efficiency, and the determinants of self-confidence.

methodsA cross-sectional study of 842 s- and third-year medical students who were asked to state their level of confidence (A: very confident, B: moderately confident and C: not confident) during 12 tests (106,806 events). A bonus was applied if the level of confidence matched with the correctness of the answer, and a penalty was applied in the case of inappropriate confidence.

resultsLevel A was selected more appropriately by the top 20% students whereas level C was selected more appropriately by the lower 20% students. Efficiency of higher-performing students was higher when correct (among correct answers, rate of A statement), but worse when incorrect compared to the bottom 20% students (among incorrect answers, rate of C statement). B and C statements were independently associated with female and male gender, respectively (OR for male vs female = 0.89 [0.82-0.96], p = 0.004, for level B and 1.15 [1.01-1.32], p = 0.047, for level C).

conclusionWhile both addressing the gender confidence gap, knowledge self-monitoring might improve awareness of students' knowledge whereas efficiency might evaluate appropriate behavior in clinical practice. These results suggest differential feedback during training in higher versus lower-performing students, and potentially harmful behavior in decision-making during clinical practice in higher-performing students.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesFeedbackFemaleHumansKnowledgeMaleEfficiencyEvaluationFeedbackGender confidence gapStudents confidence

Identifiers

PMID33213443
PMCPMC7678098
OpenAlexW3106159908

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.