Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310672›Full record

ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2022

A Study on the Performance and Perception of Medical students in Online Spotter versus Traditional Spotter Examinations.

Sangeetha Arumugam, Nandha Kumar Subbiah, Sony Jhansi Priya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Sangeetha ArumugamAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, India.
Nandha Kumar SubbiahAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, India.
Sony Jhansi PriyaKaturi Medical College and Hospital, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Medical institutions around the world are exploring various newer modes of teaching and assessment methods to incorporate into the teaching curriculum. In this changing situation, e-learning methods are being widely used. For determining the effectiveness of a new learning method, assessment should be done since learning and assessment are intricately associated. One such newer method of testing practical anatomy knowledge is online spotter examination. The present study was conducted to correlate the students' performance between traditional and online spotter exam and analyse the students' perception about both exam patterns. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 120 first year medical students after obtaining ethical approval from the Institute Research and Ethics committee. Students were selected using simple random sampling method. Two modes of practical examination, traditional and online spotter, were conducted. After the examination, mean scores of OSE and TSE were compared using independent sample Results: The performance mean score in online spotter exam was higher compared to traditional spotter exam. Analysis of the students' perception about the exam pattern revealed that they preferred the online examination. This could be attributed to advantages of online teaching and learning using audio-visual aids with good quality images (84=70%), easy to answer in multiple choice question (78=65%), quick results (108=90%), absence of bias in evaluation (108=90%), easy for future online postgraduate entrance exams (114=95%), and overall time limit and its advantages (84=70%);the only drawback was anxiety about internet connectivity (96=80%). Conclusion: Online spotter exam can be conducted for routine formative assessment under controlled conditions to improve the students' knowledge and enhance their confidence and adaptability for future online exams.

Indexed as

AnatomyAssessmentMedical studentsPerformance

Identifiers

PMID36310672
PMCPMC9589066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.