跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT05585892
NCT05585892已完成不适用

Randomised Cross-over Study on the Effectiveness of Elaboration and Proactive Feedback as Part of Formative Key Feature Examinations in Undergraduate Medical Education

University Medical Center Goettingen1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 143 人开始时间: 2018年10月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
发起方
入组人数
143
试验地点
1
主要终点
Clinical reasoning performance

研究概览

简要总结

Clinical reasoning abilities can be enhanced by repeated formative testing with key feature questions. An analysis of wrong answers to key feature questions facilitates the identification of common misconceptions. This prospective, randomised, cross-over study assessed whether an elaboration task and individualised mailed feedback further improve student performance on clinical reasoning.

详细描述

Repeated formative (i.e., non-graded) testing enhances student learning outcome on clinical reasoning skills. At University Medical Centre Göttingen (UMG), a number of trials investigating the so-called testing effect have already been conducted in the past. They showed, amongst others, that dealing with videotaped clinical cases compared with written cases increases short-term outcome but not long-term retention. More recently, one study addressed the question whether clinical reasoning skills can be fostered by an elaboration of incorrect answers. Results of a previous trial had suggested that a considerable number of students were not sufficiently motivated to provide thorough answers to elaboration questions. This impression remained even after introducing financial incentives for students although a small but significant effect of the intervention was noted (percent score in the exit exam: 65.7 +/- 19.6% vs. 62.3 +/- 22.9%; p = 0.022). Yet, student performance remained moderate at best. Thus, the intervention will now be extended by including automated feedback provided by email. All students participating in an electronic case-based seminar (e-seminar) will receive an individual email after the event, displaying their raw point score as well as their written answers to elaboration questions and expert comments reflecting current medical knowledge.

This trial addresses the following research question:

What is the effect of elaboration and consecutive automated and individual feedback following e-seminars on medical students' clinical reasoning skills?

  1. Background and previous work According to recent findings, retrieval of knowledge is not a passive process. Instead, long-term retention is being facilitated by the act of retrieval itself ('retrieval hypothesis'). Potentially, this effect that has also been called 'direct testing effect', could also be due to additional exposure to the content during an assessment. However, complex studies in which exposure was experimentally controlled did not lend support to this 'total time hypothesis'. The effectiveness of examinations as memory boosters with respect to medical education has been shown in a number studies. However, many of these used short follow-up periods (e.g., 7 days) or implemented reproduction tests on a low taxonomic level. Yet, these studies suggest that formative examinations may promote learning processes. According to a review of the topic, these exams should contain production tests and be repeated with appropriate spacing. In addition, students should receive feedback shortly after the exam.

Given these recommendations, longitudinal key feature examinations were implemented in three consecutive teaching modules at our institution in 2013. These case-based examinations lend themselves to fostering complex cognitive skills. A key feature is defined as a critical step in solving a clinical problem. According to this definition, a key feature case consists of a case vignette and approximately five consecutive questions relating to the diagnostic and therapeutic approach. In contrast to single-best answer multiple choice questions, students cannot choose from a list of five answer options but must produce a written answer. Thus, rather than recognizing the correct answer, the aim of a key feature examination is to actively produce a correct answer. In order to save students from making follow-on mistakes, they are informed about the correct answers to preceding questions whenever attempting to answer the next question. At this point, students also receive static feedback on their previous answer.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Crossover
主要目的
Other
盲法
Double (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

盲法说明

Participants could not be masked to the intervention as it was clear to them whether they had received an email (for intervention items) or not (for control items). Investigator and Outcomes Assessor knew that each participant was exposed to both item types but they were masked to the group a student was assigned to.

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者
是

入选标准

  • •Enrolment to three consecutive undergraduate teaching modules in Year 4 at Goettingen Medical School in winter term 2018/19

排除标准

  • •no informed consent

研究组 & 干预措施

Intervention items 1-15

Other

Students in this arm were exposed to intervention and control items in the 10 weekly e-seminars. Assignment of item types was the exact opposite of that in group B.

干预措施: Elaboration and individual mailed feedback (Other)

Intervention items 16-30

Other

Students in this arm were exposed to intervention and control items in the 10 weekly e-seminars. Assignment of item types was the exact opposite of that in group A.

干预措施: Elaboration and individual mailed feedback (Other)

结局指标

主要结局

Clinical reasoning performance

时间窗: Nine months after the start of the study

Within-subject difference in percent scores in intervention versus control items in the retention test six months after the last e-seminar

次要结局

  • Predictors of exam performance(Three (exit exam) and nine (retention test) months after the start of the study)

研究者

发起方
University Medical Center Goettingen
申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Tobias Raupach

Professor

University Medical Center Goettingen

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验