ArticleBMC medical education2022
The effect of access to electronic resources during examination on medical and dental students scores in summative assessment: quasi experimental study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding how medical students learn in the era of artificial intelligence: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Remote online open book examinations: through the lenses of faculty and students in health professions programmes.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to electronic (E) resources has become an indispensable requirement in medical education and practice.
objectiveOur objective was to assess the effect of E-resources access during examination on end-course-exam scores of medical and dental students.
methodsA quasi-experimental study which included two cohorts of medical (n = 106 & 85) and three cohorts of dental students (n = 66, 64 and 69) who took end-course- exams. Each exam was composed of two- parts (Part I and II), that encompassed equal number of questions and duration. Access to E-resources was allowed in part-II only. Items Difficulty Index (DI), Discrimination Index, (DisI), Point Biserial, (PBS) and cognitive level were determined.
resultsThe study included 390 students. The proportion of items at various levels of DI, DisI, and PBS and the average values for item DI, DisI in both parts of each exam were comparable. The average scores in part-II were significantly higher than part-I (P < 0.001, < 0.001 and 0.04) and lower-order cognitive-level items scores were higher in three exams (P < 0.0001, 0.0001, 0.0001). Higher- order cognitive level items scores were comparable between part I and II in all courses. The significant factor for change in marks were questions cognitive level and type of the course.
conclusionAccess to E-resources during examination does not make a significant difference in scores of higher-order cognitive level items. Question cognitive level and course type were the significant factors for the change in exam scores when accessing E-resources. Time-restricted E-resources accessed tests that examine higher cognitive level item had no significant academic integrity drawback.
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.