ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Computer Testing, Formative or Summative, and Proctoring: Does it Matter? Lessons Learned From the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine During the Corona Pandemic.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant changes in the administration of the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of various test formats. This study explores the impact of transitioning from paper-based to computer-based testing, the shift from summative to formative testing, and the effectiveness of remote proctoring compared to live supervision. Methods: Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed. Results: Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions. Discussion: Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19-related circumstances.
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.