Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

COMPUTER-ASSISTED OBJECTIVE-STRUCTURED PRACTICAL EXAMINATION: AN INNOVATIVE METHOD OF EVALUATION

2006; American Physical Society; Volume: 30; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1152/advan.00057.2005

1522-1229

Sharmila Torke, Subramanya Upadhya, Reem Rachel Abraham, K Ramnarayan,

Evaluation of Teaching Practices

IlluminationsCOMPUTER-ASSISTED OBJECTIVE-STRUCTURED PRACTICAL EXAMINATION: AN INNOVATIVE METHOD OF EVALUATIONSharmila Torke, Subramanya Upadhya, Reem Rachel Abraham, and K. RamnarayanSharmila TorkeDepartment of Physiology Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India E-mail: [email protected], Subramanya UpadhyaDepartment of Physiology Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, Reem Rachel AbrahamDepartment of Physiology Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, and K. RamnarayanDepartment of Pathology Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2005Published Online:01 Mar 2006https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2005MoreSectionsPDF (37 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailWeChat This paper describes an innovative method of administering objective-structured practical examination (OSPE) in physiology for first-year medical students of Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) in India. OSPE was used as a component of university practical examination in physiology. To innovate this method, computer-assisted OSPE (COSPE) was introduced this year for the first time during university examinations to a class of 150 students.Earlier mode of administering OSPE.The entire class was divided into four groups for the test as the facility available in our laboratory was sufficient to test only 35–40 students at a time. OSPE consisted of four sessions for each batch of students. Students were assessed by two internal and two external examiners. OSPE questions were presented to the external examiners on the day of examination. The examiners chose 10 questions from different systems according to the specification table. The selected questions were then arranged in 10 stations, and this arrangement used to take time depending on the questions selected. For instance, a question on identification of a blood cell required the faculty coordinator to focus that particular cell. About 35 students were subjected to OSPE at each station, and each student rotated through each one. Students were allowed to spend 3 min at each station, and faculty coordinators monitored the time. The stations included a variety of tasks like diagnosis of endocrine disorders, drawing and interpreting graphs, taking readings from an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) tube, calculations, and identification of blood cells and instruments. Some test stations required frequent visits by the faculty. Stations where blood cells were focused needed frequent microscopic adjustments as students changed the focused field. After the test, the answer key to each of the test items was prepared for the evaluation of student answers. For each session, there was a need to use different sets of questions because they were conducted at different times. This prevented uniform assessment for the whole class. The external examiners echoed this concern. The examiners also felt that this type of evaluation was more time consuming. On the basis of their feedback, an effort was made to evolve a more feasible and more effective method of administering OSPE. This led to the development of COSPE.The advances in computer and software technology available offer several advantages for the development and administration of computerized examination for medical education purposes (1). In our college, the physiology curriculum is divided into four blocks. Each block comprises two to three systems, which are indicated below.Block 1.Block 1 included basic concepts, blood, and nerve-muscle physiology.Block 2.Block 2 included cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal physiology.Block 3.Block 3 included endocrine, reproductive, and renal physiology.Block 4.Block 4 included central nervous system and special senses.The task of developing questions in each of these systems was distributed among the faculty. Photographs showing typical features of endocrine disorders and of instruments were collected, scanned, and stored according to the systems. A hard copy of developed questions was given to the examiners to choose specific ones just before the examination. The examiners chose the questions according to the specification table, three each from the first three blocks and one from the fourth block. The selected items were then retrieved from the source data, organized in a file, and converted into a PowerPoint presentation with the necessary animations. The presentation was then projected on an LCD screen with an autodisplay that projected a new slide every 3 min (each slide represented an original OSPE station). The answer key to test items was prepared during the test itself, and examiners were handed over the answer scripts right after the test. This hastened the evaluation process. Student and faculty responses toward COSPE were collected. Table 1 outlines student views on COSPE. Generally, the students' attitudes toward COSPE were positive. However, some flaws of the new approach were also brought to our notice, which would be rectified in the subsequent tests.Table 1 Student responses to COSPEGood approach, we are not required to move around the stationsPictures especially of blood cells are very clearCOSPE is less stressfulCOSPE is enjoyableGood way of assessing physiology practical exercises that do not require actual student performanceWell organized, should be administered more oftenSlides consisting of questions that require us to provide physiological basis should be projected longerDifficult to read ESR value and hemoglobin levels from the back rowsProvide answers following COSPETake student feedback after the testCOSPE, computer-assisted objective-structured practical examination; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate.Table 2 outlines the ratings of the nine items in the questionnaires received from 9 of the 12 faculty using a five-point Likert scale (where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree). Faculty members rated COSPE highly. Because the whole class was administered COSPE in one session, it allowed uniform assessment of the whole class. It was found to be less cumbersome, less time consuming, and also less taxing on faculty and students.Table 2 Faculty attitudes toward COSPEAverage RatingAssessment MethodOSPE (old model)COSPELess cumbersome1.54.6Less time consuming1.54.5Easy to administer1.64.7Preparation demands less faculty time2.64Uniform assessment of the whole class1.35No need to monitor time for each station1.54.8Generates a bank of questions2.84.3No need for laboratory facility1.14.8Requires less faculty coordination2.14.3Shown are ratings of the items in a questionnare provided to faculty members. Nine of twelve faculty members completed the survey. Ratings were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree).REFERENCES1 Ogilvie RW, Trusk TC, and Blue AV. Students' attitudes towards computer testing in a basic science course. Med Educ 33: 828–831, 1999.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited ByPerformance equivalency between computer-based and traditional pen-and-paper assessment: A case study in clinical anatomy17 August 2017 | Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 11, No. 2What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy?28 August 2012 | Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 6, No. 2Anatomy practical examinations: How does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format?13 September 2011 | Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 5, No. 1A trial of the objective structured practical examination in physiology at Melaka Manipal Medical College, IndiaReem Rachel Abraham, Rao Raghavendra, Kamath Surekha, and Kamath Asha1 March 2009 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 33, No. 1 More from this issue > Volume 30Issue 1March 2006Pages 48-49 Copyright & Permissions© 2006 American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2005PubMed16481610History Published online 1 March 2006 Published in print 1 March 2006 Metrics