Impacto de diferentes modalidades de evaluación en el promedio de notas de estudiantes de Medicina: un estudio de intervención no aleatorizado / Impact of different types of evaluation on the average grade of medicine students: a non-randomized interventional study

Introducción: en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje existen múltiples conflictos al momento de seleccionar el tipo de evaluación que debería aplicarse a estudiantes de Medicina. Nuestro objetivo es comparar diferencias en la media de notas de tres modalidades de examen (oral, escrito para desarrollar y preguntas de opción múltiple) para así determinar cómo estas podrían afectar el desempeño de los estudiantes de Medicina en el campo de la Farmacología. Material y métodos: estudio cuasi experimental con una intervención no aleatorizada en una muestra por conveniencia de estudiantes de Medicina. A fin de evaluar diferencias en la media de notas se hizo un análisis ANOVA para muestras pareadas y luego los correspondientes tests de T para muestras pareadas. Resultados: enrolamos inicialmente a 36 estudiantes; 7 fueron excluidos (4 por ausencia y 3 por abandono), y se obtuvieron 29 participantes. La media de notas del examen oral y la de preguntas de opción múltiple fueron ambas significativamente superiores a la del examen escrito para desarrollar (oral vs. escrito: diferencia 1,8 puntos; IC 95% 0,8 a 2,7; p < 0,01; opción múltiple vs. escrito: diferencia 2,1 puntos; IC 95% 1,4 a 2,9; p < 0,01). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las notas medias del examen oral y del examen de preguntas de opción múltiple (p = 0,37). Conclusión: los estudiantes de Medicina obtienen peores notas en el examen escrito para desarrollar en Farmacología, en relación con los exámenes oral y de preguntas de opción múltiple. Esto posiblemente se asocie al hecho de que aquella modalidad es menos frecuentemente empleada en la carrera de Medicina. (AU)

Introduction: in the teaching-learning process, there are many problems in the selection of the most suitable type of exam for evaluating medical students. Our target was to compare differences in the average grade of medical students upon taking three different types of exam (oral, written, and multiple-choice questions) to determine how these different types of exam may affect the performance of medical students in the area of Pharmacology. Material and methods: we conducted a quasi experimental study by applying a non-randomized intervention to a convenience sample of medical students. To evaluate differences in the average grades among three groups, an ANOVA analysis was applied followed by paired T-tests. Results: we initially enrolled 36 students; 7 were excluded (4 were absent and 3 abandoned the intervention), arriving at a total sum of 29 participants. The average grades of the oral exam and multiple-choice questions were both significantly higher than the written exam (oral vs. written: difference 1.8 points; 95%CI 0.8 to 2.7, p < 0.01; multiple-choice vs. written: difference 2.1 points, 95%CI 1.4 to 2.9, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the average grades on the oral exam and the multiple-choice exam (p = 0.37). Conclusion: medical students have worse grades on written exams in Pharmacology, as compared to oral and multiple-choice exams. This could possibly be associated with the fact that this type of exam is less frequently applied in Medical School. (AU)

Need for mentorship to improve learning in low-performers.

Background. About 15% of medical students perform poorly in examinations. This study was done to ascertain the causes for low performance and the effectiveness of counselling and advice regarding study skills in improving performance in a subsequent assessment. Methods. Of the 353 students who appeared for the first internal assessment examination in pathology, 83 (23.5%) scored less than 30% marks. These 83 low-performers were given a questionnaire listing stress-inducing factors and academic problems; 81 filled the questionnaire. Of these, 73 attended sessions on study skills and counselling where they interacted on a one-to-one basis regarding their personal problems. Their performance was evaluated in an internal assessment 6 months later. Results. The low-performers included 52 boys and 29 girls, 19–20 years of age. Non-academic problems contributing to low performance included language problems, problems in adjustment to life outside home, lack of self-confidence, fear of failure and worrying about the future. Academic problems included difficulty in managing study time, lack of concentration while studying, inability to retain what is studied, anxiety before examinations and inability to write an examination. Paired t-test revealed a statistically significant improvement in the post-programme performance of the 73 students who participated in the counselling sessions (p<0.001), while that of the 10 who did not participate in the project, showed no statistically significant difference (p=0.54, Wilcoxon signed rank test). A majority of students felt that the sessions helped to improve their performance (average score 3.83/6.00), change their study behaviour (3.74/6.00) and change their attitude (3.46/6.00). The programme also improved their confidence and self-esteem. Conclusion. Low-performers can benefit from tailored remedial programmes which include counselling and training in stress-coping strategies.