Cargando…
Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions
Aims: In most German medical faculties, credits in general practice can be earned via exams using multiple-choice questions (MCQ). Measures such as peer-reviews may help assure the quality of these exams. In order to use time and personnel intensive peer reviews effectively and efficiently, the proc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420119/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22916083 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000827 |
_version_ | 1782240806573178880 |
---|---|
author | Böhme, Klaus Schelling, Jörg Streitlein-Böhme, Irmgard Glassen, Katharina Schübel, Jeannine Jünger, Jana |
author_facet | Böhme, Klaus Schelling, Jörg Streitlein-Böhme, Irmgard Glassen, Katharina Schübel, Jeannine Jünger, Jana |
author_sort | Böhme, Klaus |
collection | PubMed |
description | Aims: In most German medical faculties, credits in general practice can be earned via exams using multiple-choice questions (MCQ). Measures such as peer-reviews may help assure the quality of these exams. In order to use time and personnel intensive peer reviews effectively and efficiently, the procedures used are key. Therefore, we wanted to find out whether there are differences between group and individual reviews regarding defined parameters. Methods: We conducted a controlled cross-over study with three GP reviewers from four different German universities. Each reviewed 80 MCQs, 40 individually and 40 within a group, including external assessments by a panel of experts. Furthermore all reviewers were asked to evaluate the review process and the time spent carrying out these reviews. Outcomes: We found no significant differences between the reliability and the validity of individual reviews versus group reviews. On average slightly more time was spent on group reviews compared with the individual reviews. The subjective assessments of the study participants regarding their satisfaction with the process and the efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews suggest a preference for group reviews. Conclusions: Based on this study, there are no definite recommendations for or against either approach. When choosing between the two, the specific work structures and organisation at the local faculty should be taken into account. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3420119 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | German Medical Science GMS Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34201192012-08-22 Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions Böhme, Klaus Schelling, Jörg Streitlein-Böhme, Irmgard Glassen, Katharina Schübel, Jeannine Jünger, Jana GMS Z Med Ausbild Article Aims: In most German medical faculties, credits in general practice can be earned via exams using multiple-choice questions (MCQ). Measures such as peer-reviews may help assure the quality of these exams. In order to use time and personnel intensive peer reviews effectively and efficiently, the procedures used are key. Therefore, we wanted to find out whether there are differences between group and individual reviews regarding defined parameters. Methods: We conducted a controlled cross-over study with three GP reviewers from four different German universities. Each reviewed 80 MCQs, 40 individually and 40 within a group, including external assessments by a panel of experts. Furthermore all reviewers were asked to evaluate the review process and the time spent carrying out these reviews. Outcomes: We found no significant differences between the reliability and the validity of individual reviews versus group reviews. On average slightly more time was spent on group reviews compared with the individual reviews. The subjective assessments of the study participants regarding their satisfaction with the process and the efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews suggest a preference for group reviews. Conclusions: Based on this study, there are no definite recommendations for or against either approach. When choosing between the two, the specific work structures and organisation at the local faculty should be taken into account. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2012-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3420119/ /pubmed/22916083 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000827 Text en Copyright © 2012 Böhme et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Article Böhme, Klaus Schelling, Jörg Streitlein-Böhme, Irmgard Glassen, Katharina Schübel, Jeannine Jünger, Jana Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title | Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title_full | Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title_short | Comparison of Collegial Individual and Group Reviews of General Practice Multiple Choice Questions |
title_sort | comparison of collegial individual and group reviews of general practice multiple choice questions |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420119/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22916083 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000827 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bohmeklaus comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions AT schellingjorg comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions AT streitleinbohmeirmgard comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions AT glassenkatharina comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions AT schubeljeannine comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions AT jungerjana comparisonofcollegialindividualandgroupreviewsofgeneralpracticemultiplechoicequestions |