Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38028657›Full record

ReviewMedEdPublish (2016)2023

A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education.

Steven A Burr, Thomas Gale, Jolanta Kisielewska, Paul Millin, José M Pêgo, Gergo Pinter, Iain M Robinson, Daniel Zahra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in MedEdPublish (2016), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Steven A BurrUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0222-605X
Thomas GaleUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.
Jolanta KisielewskaUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3959-0787
Paul MillinUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9725-7846
José M PêgoUniversity of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9497-6543
Gergo PinterUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1917-3203
Iain M RobinsonLancaster University, Lancaster, England, UK.
Daniel ZahraUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive testing has a long but largely unrecognized history. The advent of computer-based testing has created new opportunities to incorporate adaptive testing into conventional programmes of study. Relatively recently software has been developed that can automate the delivery of summative assessments that adapt by difficulty or content. Both types of adaptive testing require a large item bank that has been suitably quality assured. Adaptive testing by difficulty enables more reliable evaluation of individual candidate performance, although at the expense of transparency in decision making, and requiring unidirectional navigation. Adaptive testing by content enables reduction in compensation and targeted individual support to enable assurance of performance in all the required outcomes, although at the expense of discovery learning. With both types of adaptive testing, candidates are presented a different set of items to each other, and there is the potential for that to be perceived as unfair. However, when candidates of different abilities receive the same items, they may receive too many they can answer with ease, or too many that are too difficult to answer. Both situations may be considered unfair as neither provides the opportunity to demonstrate what they know. Adapting by difficulty addresses this. Similarly, when everyone is presented with the same items, but answer different items incorrectly, not providing individualized support and opportunity to demonstrate performance in all the required outcomes by revisiting content previously answered incorrectly could also be considered unfair; a point addressed when adapting by content. We review the educational rationale behind the evolution of adaptive testing and consider its inherent strengths and limitations. We explore the continuous pursuit of improvement of examination methodology and how software can facilitate personalized assessment. We highlight how this can serve as a catalyst for learning and refinement of curricula; fostering engagement of learner and educator alike.

Indexed as

adaptive testingAssessmentcompensationdifferent questionsfairnesspersonalisedprogress testingreliability

Identifiers

PMID38028657
PMCPMC10680016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.