Abstract
This descriptive article compares the functionality of frequently used assessment platforms and details, through a case study, the process of using an iPad application to administer and grade free-response practical examinations. The approach presented in this study resolves reported issues, such as cueing effects inherent to other computer-based assessment formats. In a human gross anatomy course, medical students used their iPads during a traditional practical examination to input answers directly from pure recall. Grading procedures and efficiencies of this system are described along with the benefits and limitations of administering practical examinations in this electronic format.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O. Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format? Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(1):27–32.
Karami M, Heussen N, Schmitz-Rode T, Baumann M. Advantages and disadvantages of electronic assessments in biomedical education. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, 2009, Munich, Germany. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.
Krippendorf BB, Bolender DL, Kolesari GL. Computerized grading of anatomy laboratory practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(5):220–3.
Meyer AJ, Innes SI, Stomski NJ, Armson AJ. Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;9(2):111–20.
Casey M. Computer-assisted grading of gross anatomy practical. Clin Anat. 2001;14(1):69.
Vorstenbosch MA, Bouter ST, van den Hurk MM, Kooloos JG, Bolhuis SM, Laan RF. Exploring the validity of assessment in anatomy: do images influence cognitive processes used in answering extended matching questions? Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(2):107–16.
Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(6):525–8.
Shaibah HS, van der Vleuten CPM. The validity of multiple choice practical examinations as an alternative to traditional free response examination formats in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(3):149–56.
McCloskey DI, Holland RA. A comparison of student performances in answering essay-type and multiple-choice questions. Med Educ. 1976;10(5):382–5.
Forsdyke DR. A comparison of short and multiple choice questions in the evaluation of students of biochemistry. Med Educ. 1978;12(5):351–6.
Rothman AI, Kerenyi N. The assessment of an examination in pathology consisting of multiple-choice, practical and short essay questions. Med Educ. 1980;14(5):341–4.
Norman GR, Smith EK, Powles AC, Rooney PJ, Henry NL, Dodd PE. Factors underlying performance on written tests of knowledge. Med Educ. 1987;21(4):297–304.
Veloski JJ, Rabinowitz HK, Robeson MR. A solution to the cueing effects of multiple choice questions: the un-q format. Med Educ. 1993;27(4):371–5.
Schuwirth LWT, Vleuten CPM, Donkers HH. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple-choice questions. Med Educ. 1996;30(1):44–9.
Schuwirth LW, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ. 2004;38(9):974–9.
Case SM, Swanson DB. Extended-matching items: a practical alternative to free-response questions. Teach Learn Med. 1993;5(2):107–15.
Bhakta B, Tennant A, Horton M, Lawton G, Andrich D. Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extended matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5(1):9.
Ikah DS, Finn GM, Swamy M, White PM, McLachlan JC. Clinical vignettes improve performance in anatomy practical assessment. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(3):221–9.
Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst FJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Handbook I: cognitive domain. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of education goals. New York: Longman; 1956.
Zhang G, Fenderson BA, Schmidt RR, Veloski JJ. Equivalence of students’ scores on timed and untimed anatomy practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(5):281–5.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Rush University Medical Class of 2019 for their willingness to switch to this form of computer-based assessment for practical examinations.
Notes on Contributors
ADAM B. WILSON, Ph.D., is assistant professor of anatomy in the Department of Cell and Molecular at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. With an interest in measurement and evaluation, his research within anatomy and surgical education is primarily focused on instrument development and validation, programmatic evaluation, and the evaluation of teaching pedagogies.
MARK GRICHANIK, M.A., is director of student assessment in the Office of Medical Student Programs at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. His research focuses on technology-supported learning and assessment in the service of exceptional patient care.
JAMES M. WILLIAMS, Ph.D., is professor of anatomy in the Department of Cell and Molecular Medicine at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. His research interests include models of cartilage injury and repair, development of pedagogies, and evaluation of instructional methods.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures/Disclaimers
The authors have NO affiliations, involvement, or financial interest in ExamSoft®.
Ethical Approval
This study was exempt from institutional review board approval as it is purely a descriptive study.
Previous Presentations
None.
Funding/Support
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, A.B., Grichanik, M. & Williams, J.M. Computer-Based Administration and Grading of Free-Response Practical Examination Items: a Comparison of Assessment Programs and Case Study. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 847–853 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0458-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0458-5