4.6 Article

Online Spaced Education Progress-Testing of Students to Confront Two Upcoming Challenges to Medical Schools

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 300-306

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182087bef

关键词

-

资金

  1. Harvard Medical International
  2. Harvard University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose U.S. medical students will soon complete only one licensure examination sequence, given near the end of medical school. Thus, schools are challenged to identify poorly performing students before this high-stakes test and help them retain knowledge across the duration of medical school. The authors investigated whether online spaced education progress-testing (SEPT) could achieve both aims. Method Participants were 2,648 students from four U.S. medical schools; 120 multiple-choice questions and explanations in preclinical and clinical domains were developed and validated. For 34 weeks, students randomized to longitudinal progress-testing alone (LPTA) received four new questions (with answers/explanations) each week. Students randomized to SEPT received the identical four questions each week, plus two-week and six-week cycled reviews of the questions/explanations. During weeks 31-34, the initial 40 questions were re-sent to students to assess longer-term retention. Results Of the 1,067 students enrolled, the 120-question progress-test was completed by 446 (84%) and 392 (74%) of the LPTA and SEPT students, respectively. Cronbach alpha reliability was 0.87. Scores were 39.9%, 51.9%, 58.7%, and 58.8% for students in years 1-4, respectively. Performance correlated with Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores (r = 0.52 and 0.57, respectively; P < .001) and prospectively identified students scoring below the mean on Step 1 with 75% sensitivity, 77% specificity, and 41% positive predictive value. Cycled reviews generated a 170% increase in learning retention relative to baseline (P < .001, effect size 0.95). Conclusions SEPT can identify poorly performing students and improve their longer-term knowledge retention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据