ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Reliability and Medical Students' Appreciation of Certainty-Based Marking.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) and Number Right Scoring (NRS) in Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessments: A Prospective Cohort Study of Second-Year Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- The Effect of the Question Mark Option in Progress Testing: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
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
Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) involves asking students not only the answer to an objective question, but also how certain they are that their answer is correct. In a mixed method design employing an embedded approach with a quasi-experimental design, we have examined the use of CBM during a 5-week Gynaecology and Obstetrics course. The study was conducted as a non-mandatory revision exam with two additional questionnaires on Moodle. Majority of students perceive CBM as fair (78%) and useful (94%). Most students would immediately want CBM to be used for revision exams, but more practice would be needed for CBM to be used in graded exams. The lowest self-evaluation of knowledge was mostly seen by worst (less than 70% Accuracy) and best achievers (more than 90% Accuracy); the worst achievers probably have knowledge gaps, and the best achievers probably correctly guessed at least one question. Our findings conclude that CBM does not discriminate any learner type (
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.