ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2024
Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 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.
- Effects of Proctoring on Online Intelligence Measurement: A Literature Overview and an Empirical Study.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo compare unproctored and proctored online exams among chiropractic students.
methodsPre-existing data of 234 students across 4 consecutive endocrinology classes were analyzed for this study. The course was comprised of 3 lectures (50 minutes per lecture) each week. Student performance was evaluated by midterm exam and summative exam (S1). The students from 3 classes were asked to take a voluntary second summative exam (S2) approximately 7 months after the S1. Since this study was partially conducted during the COVID pandemic, some classes took the midterm and the S1 proctored in the classroom while others took them unproctored from a remote location.
resultsThe mean midterm exam (p < .001) and S1 scores (p = .01) for the unproctored group (93.6 ± 7.0 and 88.8 ± 8.2) were significantly higher than the proctored group (88.1 ± 8.2 and 83.9 ± 11.2). The mean time taken by students was much greater for the unproctored exams than for the proctored exams (midterm: 40.7 ± 10.2 versus 16.7 ± 7.0, p < .001; S1: 47.0 ± 8.7 versus 21.5 ± 9.0, p < .001). By contrast, the mean unproctored S2 scores were lower than the proctored group (60.2 ± 14.7 versus 88.1 ± 8.2, p < .001). A linear regression test showed that the final exam was a statistically significant predictor of the recall exam (p < .01, R2 = 28.3%).
conclusionThe findings suggest that student performance is significantly altered by test format.
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.