Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42756573›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2026

Collaborative Testing in Medical Education: Insights from a Hybrid Individual-Group Examination Approach.

Becca N Kubick, Andrew R Thompson, Donald J Lowrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Becca N KubickUniversity of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH USA.
Andrew R ThompsonDepartment of Medical Education, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0917-1255
Donald J LowrieDepartment of Medical Education, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Team-based learning is a widely accepted instructional approach in undergraduate medical education, but the application of its principles outside of its traditional framework has not been fully explored. Here, we describe the implementation of a hybrid individual-group examination format during a two-week Multisystems course at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Students completed two separate in-house examinations during the course, each with individual and group components, as well as a cumulative NMBE final examination that was taken individually. A portion of the second individual examination retested concepts from the first examination to explore the impact that collaborative test-taking had on student learning. Student perceptions of the experience were evaluated using a survey after the final examination. We found a small but statistically significant decline in average in-house and NBME individual examination scores following the transition from traditional individual testing to the hybrid individual-group format. However, measured improvement in performance on retested concepts suggests that collaborative testing had a positive impact on student learning, especially among lower performing students. This testing model was overwhelmingly supported by students, who reported that group testing enhanced their learning experience and decreased the stress surrounding preparation for the examinations. Opinions on whether this approach to assessment should be utilized other courses were divided and heavily influenced by respondee class rank, highlighting a potential barrier to implementation. These findings shed light on the benefits and drawbacks of collaborative testing in the medical school context.

Indexed as

AssessmentCollaborative testingGroup examinationRetentionTeam-based learning

Identifiers

PMID42756573
PMCPMC13582734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.