Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39310607›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Pattern of Answer Script Presentation Errors: Teacher and Student Perspectives.

Asitava Deb Roy, Mala Mukherjee, Anubhav Dwivedi, Deepak Kumar, Shailendra K Yadav, Himel Mondal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Asitava Deb RoyHealth Professions Education, Institute of Health Professions Education, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Puducherry, IND.
Mala MukherjeePathology, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College, Kishanganj, IND.
Anubhav DwivediPhysiology, Autonomous State Medical College Society, Auraiya, IND.
Deepak KumarPathology, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College, Kishanganj, IND.
Shailendra K YadavPathology, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College, Kishanganj, IND.
Himel MondalPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Deoghar, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Answer script presentation is an effective means of conveying knowledge and understanding. It reflects clarity of thought and organization, which can positively influence scoring. Additionally, well-structured answers reduce the chances of misinterpretation, ensuring that your knowledge is accurately assessed. Despite its importance, there is limited research focusing on the specific errors students make in presenting their answers. Hence, this study explored common errors in answer script presentation from the perspectives of both teachers and students. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 240 students and 50 teachers in July 2024 at Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College, Bihar, India. A questionnaire was developed by a three-member panel of experts in education and assessment to ensure it was comprehensive and relevant to the study's objectives. The questionnaire comprised 12 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale where a higher score indicates higher perceptions of the error. Data were collected from teachers and students using the pre-tested self-administered printed questionnaire. The scores among the different perceived errors were compared by ANOVA and the scores between teachers and students were compared by unpaired t-test. Results Students perceived that their highest error was inconsistent handwriting (2.72±1.4), followed by incomplete diagrams (2.52±1.2) and disorganization (2.47±1.17). The error perceived to be least important was incorrect numbering (1.53±0.97), F=12.49, p-value<0.0001. Teachers perceived the error in illegible handwriting (4.36±0.48), followed by lack of emphasis (4.16±0.62) and disorganization (3.94±0.91) as the errors most likely to contribute to poor performance. The error perceived to be least important was inconsistent handwriting (2.4±1.01), F=18.22, p-value<0.0001. When the data were compared between teachers and students, except for inconsistent handwriting, the perceived error score by teachers was higher than the students perceived. Conclusion There was a significant disparity between students' and teachers' perceptions of common presentation errors, with teachers consistently rating the severity of errors higher than students. Both groups identified inconsistent handwriting as a prominent error. This underscores the need for better alignment and communication between students and educators regarding the importance of specific aspects of written presentation in assessments.

Indexed as

answer scriptanswer script writingassessment errorsdiagramessay-type questionexaminationhandwriting legibilitymedical studentstudent perceptionsteacher perceptions

Identifiers

PMID39310607
PMCPMC11416841

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.