ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2022
Assessment of biomedical engineering knowledge using true-false questions.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shift from on-campus to remote online examinations, which are usually difficult to invigilate. Meanwhile, closed-ended question formats, such as true-false (TF), are particularly suited to these examination conditions, as they allow automatic marking by computer software. While previous studies have reported the score characteristics in TF questions in conventional supervised examinations, this study investigates the efficacy of using TF questions in online, unsupervised examinations at the undergraduate level of Biomedical Engineering. We examine the TF and other question-type scores of 57 students across three examinations held in 2020 under online, unsupervised conditions. Our analysis shows significantly larger coefficient of variance (CV) in scores in TF questions (42.7%) than other question types (22.3%). The high CV in TF questions may be explained by different answering strategies among students, with 13.3 ± 17.2% of TF questions left unanswered (zero marks) and 16.4 ± 11.5% of TF questions guessed incorrectly (negative marks awarded). In unsupervised, open-book examination where sharing of answers among students is a potential risk; questions that induce a larger variation in responses may be desirable to differentiate among students. We also observed a significant relationship (r = 0.64, p < 0.05) between TF scores and the overall subject scores, indicating that TF questions are an effective predictor of overall student performance. Our results from this initial analysis suggests that TF questions are useful for assessing biomedical-theme content in online, unsupervised examinations, and are encouraging for their ongoing use in future assessments.
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.