Cargando…
The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing
BACKGROUND: Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10652541/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37968656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7 |
_version_ | 1785147707579432960 |
---|---|
author | Kemp, Paul R. Bradshaw, Jacob M. Pandya, Brijmohan Davies, Daniel Morrell, Mary J. Sam, Amir H. |
author_facet | Kemp, Paul R. Bradshaw, Jacob M. Pandya, Brijmohan Davies, Daniel Morrell, Mary J. Sam, Amir H. |
author_sort | Kemp, Paul R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events. METHODS: Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs. RESULTS: Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r = 0.63, p < 0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r = 0.57, p < 0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65–34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74–5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33–4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance. Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02–7.90). CONCLUSION: Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students’ learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10652541 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106525412023-11-15 The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing Kemp, Paul R. Bradshaw, Jacob M. Pandya, Brijmohan Davies, Daniel Morrell, Mary J. Sam, Amir H. BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events. METHODS: Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs. RESULTS: Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r = 0.63, p < 0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r = 0.57, p < 0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65–34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74–5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33–4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance. Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02–7.90). CONCLUSION: Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students’ learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7. BioMed Central 2023-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10652541/ /pubmed/37968656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kemp, Paul R. Bradshaw, Jacob M. Pandya, Brijmohan Davies, Daniel Morrell, Mary J. Sam, Amir H. The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title | The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title_full | The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title_fullStr | The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title_full_unstemmed | The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title_short | The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing |
title_sort | validity of engagement and feedback assessments (efas): identifying students at risk of failing |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10652541/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37968656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kemppaulr thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT bradshawjacobm thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT pandyabrijmohan thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT daviesdaniel thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT morrellmaryj thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT samamirh thevalidityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT kemppaulr validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT bradshawjacobm validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT pandyabrijmohan validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT daviesdaniel validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT morrellmaryj validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing AT samamirh validityofengagementandfeedbackassessmentsefasidentifyingstudentsatriskoffailing |