ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Efficiency, Usability, and Outcomes of Proctored Next-Level Exams for Proficiency Testing in Primary Care Education: Observational Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. 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.
- Remote versus on-site proctored exam: comparing student results in a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected education and assessment programs and has resulted in complex planning. Therefore, we organized the proficiency test for admission to the Family Medicine program as a proctored exam. To prevent fraud, we developed a web-based supervisor app for tracking and tracing candidates' behaviors.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the efficiency and usability of the proctored exam procedure and to analyze the procedure's impact on exam scores.
methodsThe application operated on the following three levels to register events: the recording of actions, analyses of behavior, and live supervision. Each suspicious event was given a score. To assess efficiency, we logged the technical issues and the interventions. To test usability, we counted the number of suspicious students and behaviors. To analyze the impact that the supervisor app had on students' exam outcomes, we compared the scores of the proctored group and those of the on-campus group. Candidates were free to register for off-campus participation or on-campus participation.
resultsOf the 593 candidates who subscribed to the exam, 472 (79.6%) used the supervisor app and 121 (20.4%) were on campus. The test results of both groups were comparable. We registered 15 technical issues that occurred off campus. Further, 2 candidates experienced a negative impact on their exams due to technical issues. The application detected 22 candidates with a suspicion rating of >1. Suspicion ratings mainly increased due to background noise. All events occurred without fraudulent intent.
conclusionsThis pilot observational study demonstrated that a supervisor app that records and registers behavior was able to detect suspicious events without having an impact on exams. Background noise was the most critical event. There was no fraud detected. A supervisor app that registers and records behavior to prevent fraud during exams was efficient and did not affect exam outcomes. In future research, a controlled study design should be used to compare the cost-benefit balance between the complex interventions of the supervisor app and candidates' awareness of being monitored via a safe browser plug-in for exams.
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.