Exploring the feasibility of using very short answer questions (VSAQs) in team-based learning (TBL).

BACKGROUND: Team-based learning (TBL) currently relies on single best answer questions (SBAQs) to provide immediate feedback. Very short answer questions (VSAQs) are a reliable and discriminatory alternative that encourage learners to use more authentic clinical reasoning strategies compared to SBAQs. However, the challenge of marking VSAQs has limited their integration into TBL; we therefore explored the feasibility of VSAQs within a TBL session. METHODS: An online platform was developed to allow immediate marking of VSAQs during the TBL sessions. As part of the readiness assurance process, students completed VSAQs and SBAQs, which were marked in real time. RESULTS: Instructors were able to mark all VSAQs during the individual readiness assurance test (iRAT), which facilitated the provision of immediate feedback during the team readiness assurance test (tRAT). The mean time to mark five VSAQs was 422 seconds (SD 73 seconds). For VSAQs, the number of attempts to reach the correct answer ranged from 1 to 38, compared to 1 to 4 for SBAQs. In total, 71.6% of students agreed that using VSAQs in TBL helped to emphasise group discussions. DISCUSSION: The wide range of attempts at, and students' perspectives of VSAQs are suggestive of their positive impact on student discussion during TBL. We demonstrate how new technology allows VSAQs to be feasibly integrated into TBL with the potential to enrich group discussions.

National inter-rater agreement of standardised simulated-patient-based assessments.

PURPOSE: The forthcoming UK Medical Licensing Assessment will require all medical schools in the UK to ensure that their students pass an appropriately designed Clinical and Professional Skills Assessment (CPSA) prior to graduation and registration with a licence to practice medicine. The requirements for the CPSA will be set by the General Medical Council, but individual medical schools will be responsible for implementing their own assessments. It is therefore important that assessors from different medical schools across the UK agree on what standard of performance constitutes a fail, pass or good grade. METHODS: We used an experimental video-based, single-blinded, randomised, internet-based design. We created videos of simulated student performances of a clinical examination at four scripted standards: clear fail (CF), borderline (BD), clear pass (CPX) and good (GD). Assessors from ten regions across the UK were randomly assigned to watch five videos in 12 different combinations and asked to give competence domain scores and an overall global grade for each simulated candidate. The inter-rater agreement as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way random-effects model for absolute agreement was calculated for the total domain scores. RESULTS: 120 assessors enrolled in the study, with 98 eligible for analysis. The ICC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-0.99). The mean percentage agreement with the scripted global grade was 74.4% (range 40.8-96.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-rater agreement amongst assessors across the UK when rating simulated candidates performing at scripted levels is excellent. The level of agreement for the overall global performance level for simulated candidates is also high. These findings suggest that assessors from across the UK viewing the same simulated performances show high levels of agreement of the standards expected of students at a 'clear fail,' 'borderline,' 'clear pass' and 'good' level.