Search

Unlabelled: CONSTRUCT: In this study, we examine the differences in test performance between the paper-based and the computer-based version of the Berlin formative Progress Test. In this context it is the first study that allows controlling for students' prior performance., Background: Computer-based tests make possible a more efficient examination procedure for test administration and review. Although university staff will benefit largely from computer-based tests, the question arises if computer-based tests influence students' test performance., Approach: A total of 266 German students from the 9th and 10th semester of medicine (comparable with the 4th-year North American medical school schedule) participated in the study (paper = 132, computer = 134). The allocation of the test format was conducted as a randomized matched-pair design in which students were first sorted according to their prior test results. The organizational procedure, the examination conditions, the room, and seating arrangements, as well as the order of questions and answers, were identical in both groups., Results: The sociodemographic variables and pretest scores of both groups were comparable. The test results from the paper and computer versions did not differ. The groups remained within the allotted time, but students using the computer version (particularly the high performers) needed significantly less time to complete the test. In addition, we found significant differences in guessing behavior. Low performers using the computer version guess significantly more than low-performing students in the paper-pencil version., Conclusions: Participants in computer-based tests are not at a disadvantage in terms of their test results. The computer-based test required less processing time. The reason for the longer processing time when using the paper-pencil version might be due to the time needed to write the answer down, controlling for transferring the answer correctly. It is still not known why students using the computer version (particularly low-performing students) guess at a higher rate. Further studies are necessary to understand this finding.

Unlabelled: CONSTRUCT: The study compares paper and online ratings of instructional units and analyses, with the G-study using the symmetry principle, the response rates needed to ensure acceptable precision of the measure when compliance is low., Background: Students' ratings of teaching contribute to the quality of medical training programs. To date, many schools have replaced pen-and-paper questionnaires with electronic forms, despite the lower response rates consistently reported with the latter. Few available studies have examined the effects of low response rates on the reliability and precision of the evaluation measure. Moreover, the minimum number of raters to target when response rates are low remains unclear., Approach: Descriptive data were derived from 799 students' paper and online ratings of 11 preclinical instructional units (PIUs). Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The generalizability method applying the symmetry principle approach was used to analyze the precision of the measure with a reference standard error of mean (SEM) set at 0.10; optimization models were built to estimate minimum response rates., Results: Overall, response rates were 74% and 30% (p < .001) and PIUs ratings were 3.8 ± 0.5 and 3.6 ± 0.5 (p = .02), respectively in paper and online questionnaires. Higher SEM levels and significantly larger 95% confidence intervals of PIUs rating scores were observed with online evaluations. To keep the SEM within preset limits of precision, a minimum of 48% response rate was estimated for online formats., Conclusions: The proposed generalizability analysis allowed estimating the minimum response needed to maintain acceptable precision in online evaluations. The effects of response rates on accuracy are discussed.