Perspectives on medical education · 2026
Computer Testing, Formative or Summative, and Proctoring: Does it Matter? Lessons Learned From the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine During the Corona Pandemic.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ravesloot Jan Hindrik, Donkers Jeroen, Meiboom Ariadne A, Langers Alexandra M J, Jacobs Bram, Tio Rene, van der Vleuten Cees, Bremers Andreas J A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant changes in the administration of the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of various test formats. This study explores the impact of transitioning from paper-based to computer-based testing, the shift from summative to formative testing, and the effectiveness of remote proctoring compared to live supervision.
METHODS: Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed.
RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions.
DISCUSSION: Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19-related circumstances.
METHODS: Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed.
RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions.
DISCUSSION: Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19-related circumstances.