ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
A Comparative Study on Assessing the Summative Assessments Before and After Implementing Competency-Based Medical Education in India.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
Introduction: Competency-Based Medical Education [CBME] is a framework for organizing medical education programs that emphasize ongoing assessments to monitor learners' progress. Implemented by the erstwhile Medical Council of India since the 2019-2020 academic year, this approach has influenced undergraduate summative assessments for Forensic Medicine. To assess the implementation, effectiveness, and alignment of the new curriculum with the goals of medical education, it is necessary to compare summative assessment question papers of undergraduate MBBS students from 2017 to 2020. Methodology: Researchers evaluated 32 summative examination question papers from eight medical universities across India, categorizing them into structured, non-structured, and action verb-based categories, according to Bloom's revised taxonomy's cognitive domain (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create). They compared the data with the pre- and post-implementation benchmarks of the CBME curriculum of the National Medical Commission (NMC) from the 2019 batch MBBS program. Results: Most universities used unstructured questions and most marks were allocated to remember the levels of the cognitive domain. It was also found that marks were skewed towards specific topics in all universities, leading to inappropriate sampling and coverage of the competencies. The study also revealed that core areas, such as medical jurisprudence and toxicology, were inappropriately assessed. Conclusion: The quality of the summative exam questions in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology subjects was poor and not aligned with the CBME, highlighting the need to assess the clarity and utility of blueprints currently employed by universities.
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.