ArticleBMC medical education2023
Remote online open book examinations: through the lenses of faculty and students in health professions programmes.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- STEM exam performance: Open- versus closed-book methods in the large language model era.The clinical teacher · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpen book examinations have been used to assess students' higher order cognitive skills. These examinations can be conducted online remotely with the advancement of technology. However, there are concerns regarding its validity and reliability particularly if the examinations are not proctored. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of faculty and students in health professions programmes about remote online open book examinations (ROOBE).
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted among 22 faculty staff who were involved in ROOBE in health professions programmes. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. The perceptions of 249 medical students were obtained using an online questionnaire after they completed ROOBE.
resultsThe faculty agreed that open book examinations could promote students' higher order cognitive skills and reduce students' stress. However, they were concerned about students' academic integrity during non-invigilated ROOBE which could affect recognition by accreditation and professional bodies. The shift from traditional practice of closed-book examinations to ROOBE required change management with the support of guidelines and faculty training. Majority of the students claimed that the examinations were challenging as they assessed their ability to apply knowledge in real world problems. Nevertheless, they preferred ROOBE due to less anxiety and memorisation, and more emphasis on problem solving skills. The shortcomings were insufficient time for information searching during examinations and uncertainty in preparedness for future practice as they focused less on memorisation of factual knowledge during examination preparation. Cheating among peers and internet instability during non-invigilated ROOBE were the concerns highlighted by some students.
conclusionsFaculty and students expressed favourable views about ROOBE in promoting higher order cognitive skills. Adequate technological support was essential during ROOBE. While there was a need to address issues related to academic integrity, ROOBE could be included as an authentic assessment within the systems of assessment.
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.