BackgroundActive engagement with feedback is crucial for feedback to be effective and improve students' learning and achievement. Medical students are provided feedback on their development in the... Show moreBackgroundActive engagement with feedback is crucial for feedback to be effective and improve students' learning and achievement. Medical students are provided feedback on their development in the progress test (PT), which has been implemented in various medical curricula, although its format, integration and feedback differ across institutions. Existing research on engagement with feedback in the context of PT is not sufficient to make a definitive judgement on what works and which barriers exist. Therefore, we conducted an interview study to explore students' feedback use in medical progress testing.MethodsAll Dutch medical students participate in a national, curriculum-independent PT four times a year. This mandatory test, composed of multiple-choice questions, provides students with written feedback on their scores. Furthermore, an answer key is available to review their answers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 preclinical and clinical medical students who participated in the PT. Template analysis was performed on the qualitative data using a priori themes based on previous research on feedback use.ResultsTemplate analysis revealed that students faced challenges in crucial internal psychological processes that impact feedback use, including 'awareness', 'cognizance', 'agency' and 'volition'. Factors such as stakes, available time, feedback timing and feedback presentation contributed to these difficulties, ultimately hindering feedback use. Notably, feedback engagement was higher during clinical rotations, and students were interested in the feedback when seeking insights into their performance level and career perspectives.ConclusionOur study enhanced the understanding of students' feedback utilisation in medical progress testing by identifying key processes and factors that impact feedback use. By recognising and addressing barriers in feedback use, we can improve both student and teacher feedback literacy, thereby transforming the PT into a more valuable learning tool. Show less
Wijk, E.V. van; Janse, R.J.; Ruijter, B.N.; Rohling, J.H.T.; Kraan, J. van der; Crobach, S.; ... ; Langers, A.M.J. 2023
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open... Show moreMultiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open-ended questions requiring a very short answer, may circumvent these limitations. Although VSAQ use in medical assessment increases, almost all research on reliability and validity of VSAQs in medical education has been performed by a single research group with extensive experience in the development of VSAQs. Therefore, we aimed to validate previous findings about VSAQ reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students and teachers with limited experience in VSAQs development. To validate the results presented in previous studies, we partially replicated a previous study and extended results on student experiences. Dutch undergraduate medical students (n = 375) were randomized to VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in a formative exam in two courses, to determine reliability, discrimination, and cueing. Acceptability for teachers (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Reliability (Cronbach's & alpha;) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach's & alpha; was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (average R-ir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was & PLUSMN;2 minutes on average. Positive cueing occurred more in MCQs than in VSAQs (20% vs. 4% and 20.8% vs. 8.3% of questions per person in both courses). This study validates the positive results regarding VSAQs reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VSAQ use is reliable among teachers with limited experience in writing and marking VSAQs. The short learning curve for teachers, favourable marking time and applicability regardless of the topic suggest that VSAQs might also be valuable beyond medical assessment. Show less
Wijk, E.V. van; Janse, R.J.; Ruijter, B.N.; Rohling, J.H.T.; Kraan, J. van der; Crobach S.; ... ; Langers, A.M.J. 2023
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open... Show moreMultiple choice questions (MCQs) offer high reliability and easy machine-marking, but allow for cueing and stimulate recognition-based learning. Very short answer questions (VSAQs), which are open-ended questions requiring a very short answer, may circumvent these limitations. Although VSAQ use in medical assessment increases, almost all research on reliability and validity of VSAQs in medical education has been performed by a single research group with extensive experience in the development of VSAQs. Therefore, we aimed to validate previous findings about VSAQ reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students and teachers with limited experience in VSAQs development. To validate the results presented in previous studies, we partially replicated a previous study and extended results on student experiences. Dutch undergraduate medical students (n = 375) were randomized to VSAQs first and MCQs second or vice versa in a formative exam in two courses, to determine reliability, discrimination, and cueing. Acceptability for teachers (i.e., VSAQ review time) was determined in the summative exam. Reliability (Cronbach's α) was 0.74 for VSAQs and 0.57 for MCQs in one course. In the other course, Cronbach's α was 0.87 for VSAQs and 0.83 for MCQs. Discrimination (average Rir) was 0.27 vs. 0.17 and 0.43 vs. 0.39 for VSAQs vs. MCQs, respectively. Reviewing time of one VSAQ for the entire student cohort was ±2 minutes on average. Positive cueing occurred more in MCQs than in VSAQs (20% vs. 4% and 20.8% vs. 8.3% of questions per person in both courses). This study validates the positive results regarding VSAQs reliability, discrimination, and acceptability in undergraduate medical students. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VSAQ use is reliable among teachers with limited experience in writing and marking VSAQs. The short learning curve for teachers, favourable marking time and applicability regardless of the topic suggest that VSAQs might also be valuable beyond medical assessment. Show less
