Medical Student Evaluation With a Serious Game Compared to Multiple Choice Questions Assessment

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for evaluating medical students’ knowledge is by multiple choice question (MCQs) tests: an objective and effective means of restituting book-based knowledge. However, concerns have been raised regarding their effectiveness to evaluate global medical skills. Furthermore, MCQs of unequal difficulty can generate frustration and may also lead to a sizable proportion of close results with low score variability. Serious games (SG) have recently been introduced to better evaluate students’ medical skills. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare MCQs with SG for medical student evaluation. METHODS: We designed a cross-over randomized study including volunteer medical students from two medical schools in Paris (France) from January to September 2016. The students were randomized into two groups and evaluated either by the SG first and then the MCQs, or vice-versa, for a cardiology clinical case. The primary endpoint was score variability evaluated by variance comparison. Secondary endpoints were differences in and correlation between the MCQ and SG results, and student satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 68 medical students were included. The score variability was significantly higher in the SG group (σ(2) =265.4) than the MCQs group (σ(2)=140.2; P=.009). The mean score was significantly lower for the SG than the MCQs at 66.1 (SD 16.3) and 75.7 (SD 11.8) points out of 100, respectively (P<.001). No correlation was found between the two test results (R(2)=0.04, P=.58). The self-reported satisfaction was significantly higher for SG (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that SGs are more effective in terms of score variability than MCQs. In addition, they are associated with a higher student satisfaction rate. SGs could represent a new evaluation modality for medical students.