ArticleMedical science educator2022
Improving Summative Assessment Through a Resource-Efficient Faculty Review Process.
Article in Medical science educator, 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
Committee reviews improve the quality of multiple-choice question (MCQ) exams; however, such review processes are typically highly resource-intensive and time-consuming. We report a review process that requires limited faculty time and administrative resources. A small committee reviewed selected items (14-20%) of the final exams of six independent block courses taken by first- and second-year medical students. This process resulted in a significant increase in the item discrimination of reviewed questions in all exams. Our findings support the utility of a review process and may offer health profession educators a more practical and efficient approach for improving the quality of in-house MCQ exams. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01631-9.
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.