ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Online Assessments and Their Parameters as Predictors of Academic Performance in Undergraduate Medical Education.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Considering the increasing utilization of online educational tools in medical education, it is essential to evaluate the reliability and validity of online assessments to accurately assess student proficiency and predict academic success. This study investigated the predictive efficacy of different online assessment methods in comparison to standard offline methods within the medical educational setting. Methods This study utilized a mixed-methods crossover design, involving 125 first-year medical students who were randomly assigned to either online or traditional examinations. The students then crossed over to the other type of assessment. The assessments consisted of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), viva voce, objective structured clinical examinations, and written theory examinations. Quantitative data on results, finishing times, and academic metrics were analyzed, along with qualitative data from student interviews exploring perceptions of each format. Results The online MCQs had the highest average scores and a moderately positive correlation with performance on the theory examination (r=0.326). Regression models indicated that online and offline MCQs were moderate positive predictors of theoretical marks (R
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.