Search

Clinical reasoning competency is essential for an appropriate clinical dental treatment. Among the tools for the assessment of clinical reasoning competency, computer-based testing (CBT) is considered more useful than paper-based testing (PBT), because teachers can control the timing of information given to the examinees. Such timings could possibly affect the thinking process of examinees. However, few studies reported differences of reasoning between the two testing modes. In the present study, we developed an assessment of clinical reasoning and applied it using CBT and PBT to compare the examinees' performance. The participants comprised 60 students in the fifth-year class in 2012 of the School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The tests comprised 25 problems, each with four questions, totaling 100 questions. The contents of the questions were the same in CBT and PBT. The students were assigned to CBT (Group C, n = 30) and PBT (Group P, n = 30) groups, with an almost equal gender ratio in the groups. The difference between scores was analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance. No significant intergroup differences were found regarding the test duration, total score, and average score of each question. The number of problems with perfect marks was higher in Group P than in Group C (P < 0.05), probably because Group P students could access the information of the previous question (s) within a problem. Thus, the differences of the examinees' performance between the two testing modes were small.

Background: Correct diagnosis in psychiatry may be improved by novel diagnostic procedures. Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are suggested to be able to improve diagnostic procedures, but some studies indicate possible problems. Therefore, it could be important to investigate CDSS systems with regard to their feasibility to improve diagnostic procedures as well as to save time., Methods: This study was undertaken to compare the traditional 'paper and pencil' diagnostic method SCID1 with the computer-aided diagnostic system CB-SCID1 to ascertain processing time and accuracy of diagnoses suggested. 63 clinicians volunteered to participate in the study and to solve two paper-based cases using either a CDSS or manually., Results: No major difference between paper and pencil and computer-supported diagnosis was found. Where a difference was found it was in favour of paper and pencil. For example, a significantly shorter time was found for paper and pencil for the difficult case, as compared to computer support. A significantly higher number of correct diagnoses were found in the diffilt case for the diagnosis 'Depression' using the paper and pencil method. Although a majority of the clinicians found the computer method supportive and easy to use, it took a longer time and yielded fewer correct diagnoses than with paper and pencil., Conclusion: This study could not detect any major difference in diagnostic outcome between traditional paper and pencil methods and computer support for psychiatric diagnosis. Where there were significant differences, traditional paper and pencil methods were better than the tested CDSS and thus we conclude that CDSS for diagnostic procedures may interfere with diagnosis accuracy. A limitation was that most clinicians had not previously used the CDSS system under study. The results of this study, however, confirm that CDSS development for diagnostic purposes in psychiatry has much to deal with before it can be used for routine clinical purposes.

Background: To see if there is a difference in performance when students switch from traditional paper-and-pencil examinations to computer-based examinations, and to determine whether there are gender differences in student performance in these two examination formats., Methods: This study involved first year medical students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign over three Academic Years 2002-03/2003-04 and 2003-05. Comparisons of student performance by overall class and gender were made. Specific comparisons within courses that utilized both the paper-and-pencil and computer formats were analyzed., Results: Overall performance scores for students among the various Academic Years revealed no differences between exams given in the traditional pen-and-paper and computer formats. Further, when we looked specifically for gender differences in performance between these two testing formats, we found none., Conclusion: The format for examinations in the courses analyzed does not affect student performance. We find no evidence for gender differences in performance on exams on pen-and-paper or computer-based exams.