Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33882910›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Collaborative testing in physical examination skills training and the autonomous motivation of students: a qualitative study.

Jiska A Patiwael, Anje H Douma, Natalia Bezakova, Rashmi A Kusurkar, Hester E M Daelmans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

5 authors.

Jiska A PatiwaelAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.patiwael@amsterdamumc.nl.
Anje H DoumaAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Natalia BezakovaAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rashmi A KusurkarAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9382-0379
Hester E M DaelmansAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeaching methods that stimulate the active learning of students make a positive impact on several aspects of learning in higher education. Collaborative testing blended with teaching is one such method. At our medical school, a training session was designed using a collaborative testing format to engage medical students actively in the theoretical phase of a physical examination training, and this session was evaluated positively by our students. Therefore, we extended the use of the format and converted more of the training into collaborative testing sessions. The literature on collaborative testing and the theoretical framework underlying its motivational mechanisms is scarce; however, students have reported greater motivation. The aim of the current study was to investigate student perceptions of a collaborative testing format versus a traditional teaching format and their effects on student motivation.

methodsYear four medical students attended seven physical examination training sessions, of which three followed a collaborative testing format and four a traditional format. The students were asked to evaluate both formats through questionnaires comprised of two items that were answered on a five-point Likert scale and five open-ended essay questions. Content analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. The themes from this analysis were finalized through the consensus of the full research team.

resultsThe quantitative data showed that 59 students (55%) preferred collaborative testing (agreed or strongly agreed), 40 students (37%) were neutral, and 8 students (8%) did not prefer collaborative testing (disagreed or strongly disagreed). The themes found for the collaborative testing format were: 'interaction', 'thinking for themselves', and 'active participation'. 'Interaction' and 'thinking for themselves' were mainly evaluated positively by the students. The most frequently mentioned theme for the traditional format was: 'the teacher explaining'. Students evaluated this theme both positively and negatively.

conclusionsThe most frequently mentioned themes for the collaborative testing format, namely 'interaction', 'thinking for themselves', and 'active participation', fit within the framework of self-determination theory (SDT). Therefore, the collaborative testing format may support the fulfilment of the three basic psychological needs indicated in SDT: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Thus, our findings provide initial support for the idea that the use of collaborative testing in medical education can foster the autonomous motivation of students.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalStudents, MedicalHumansMotivationPhysical ExaminationProblem-Based LearningClinical skills trainingCollaborative testingMotivation

Identifiers

PMID33882910
PMCPMC8061016

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.