ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Identification of parameters for electronic distance examinations.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. 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
Introduction: This study investigates the log data and response behavior from invigilated in-person electronic timed exams at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Germany. The primary focus is on understanding how various factors influence the time needed per exam item, including item format, item difficulty, item discrimination and character count. The aim was to use these results to derive recommendations for designing timed online distance examinations, an examination format that has become increasingly important in recent years. Methods: Data from 216,625 log entries of five electronic exams, taken by a total of 1,241 veterinary medicine students in 2021 and 2022, were analyzed. Various statistical methods were employed to assess the correlations between the recorded parameters. Results: The analysis revealed that different item formats require varying amounts of time. For instance, image-based question formats and Kprim necessitated more than 60 s per item, whereas one-best-answer multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and individual Key Feature items were effectively completed in less than 60 s. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between character count and response time, suggesting that longer items require more time. A negative correlation could be verified for the parameters "difficulty" and "discrimination index" towards response time, indicating that more challenging items and those that are less able to differentiate between high- and low-performing students take longer to answer. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for careful consideration of the ratio of item formats when defining time limits for exams. Regarding exam design, the literature mentions that time pressure is a critical factor, since it can negatively impact students' exam performance and some students, such as those with disabilities, are particularly disadvantaged. Therefore, this study emphasizes finding the right time limits to provide sufficient time for answering questions and reducing time pressure. In the context of unsupervised online exams, the findings of this study support previous recommendations that implementation of a stringent time limit might be a useful strategy to reduce cheating.
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.