ArticleBMC medical education2024
Comparing paper-based and mobile application for rank-based peer assessment in interprofessional education: before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEducation was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was a need to adapt the learning approaches to the situation. At the University of Gadjah Mada, many essential soft skills of healthcare professionals are taught using the interprofessional education (IPE) approach on-site. Our university responded to this crisis by offering online classes and similar types of training. Post-administration of the course, a peer-assessment was conducted, and it was used to provide feedback on the work or performance of peers among students. Peer assessment was done using paper-based and a mobile application during COVID-19. This study aimed to share a best practice for the implementation of a rank-based peer-assessment application for longitudinal interprofessional education in the community setting and to compare the score distribution of a rank-based peer-assessment before and after using mobile application.
methodsQuantitative research design was used by processing secondary data on student peer assessment scores from 3 bachelor programs (medicine, nursing, nutritionist) Community and Family Health Care with Interprofessional Education (CFHC-IPE) in Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, Universitas Gadjah Mada. 4,790 students from 2018 to 2022 (5 years) were tracked before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessments carried out were offline, online, and blended learning, respectively. The assessment was carried out using a paper-based method before and during the pandemic, online-based with a mobile application was used. Thus, the peer-assessment was conducted manually or using paper-based method using a 5-rank scoring system. In 2019, the peer assessment was carried out using a mobile application and applied a 10-rank scoring system.
resultsThe rank-based peer assessment can be well implemented to make students assess their friends more objectively, with an average score 82.02 ± 8.68. The rightward shift in the distribution of scores indicates that the average score has improved after using the mobile application compared to before its use. (82.02 ± 8.68 vs. 62.39 ± 11.13, p < 0.05).
conclusionThe implementation of rank-based peer-assessment using a mobile application was well received during and after the pandemic by interprofessional undergraduate students. The online system made the assessment more objective and the average grades were seen to be better.
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.