Comparison of electronic versus conventional assessment methods in ophthalmology residents; a learner assessment scholarship study

Abstract

Background Assessment is a necessary part of training postgraduate medical residents. The implementation of methods located at the “shows how” level of Miller’s pyramid is believed to be more effective than previous conventional tools. In this study, we quantitatively compared electronic and conventional methods in assessing ophthalmology residents. Methods In this retrospective study, eight different conventional methods of assessment including residents’ attendance, logbook, scholarship and research skills, journal club, outpatient department participation, Multiple Choice Question (MCQ), Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and professionalism/360-degree (as one complex) were used to assess 24 ophthalmology residents of all grades. Electronic media consisting of an online Patient Management Problem (e-PMP), and modified electronic OSCE (me-OSCE) tests performed 3 weeks later were also evaluated for each of the 24 residents. Quantitative analysis was then performed comparing the conventional and electronic assessment tools, statistically assessing the correlation between the two approaches. Results Twenty-four ophthalmology residents of different grades were included in this study. In the electronic assessment, average e-PMP scores (48.01 ± 12.40) were much lower than me-OSCE (65.34 ± 17.11). The total average electronic score was 56.67 ± 11.28, while the total average conventional score was 80.74 ± 5.99. Female and male residents’ average scores in the electronic and conventional method were (59.15 ± 12.32 versus 83.01 ± 4.95) and (55.19 ± 10.77 versus 79.38 ± 6.29), respectively. The correlation between modified electronic OSCE and all conventional methods was not statistically significant (P-value >0.05). Correlation between e-PMP and six conventional methods, consisting of professionalism/360-degree assessment tool, logbook, research skills, Multiple Choice Questions, Outpatient department participation, and Journal club active participation was statistically significant (P-value < 0.05). The overall correlation between conventional and electronic methods was significant (P-value = 0.017). Conclusion In this study, we conclude that electronic PMP can be used alongside all conventional tools, and overall, e-assessment methods could replace currently used conventional methods. Combined electronic PMP and me-OSCE can be used as a replacement for currently used gold-standard assessment methods, including 360-degree assessment.

Evaluation of the Utility of Online Objective Structured Clinical Examination Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…However, weak correlation was detected between students’ results in online OSCE and their previous conventional clinical assessment. This is congruent with the results reported by Hasani et al 15 in a similar study. One of the explanations for this weak correlation might be the difference in the clinical assessment methods used.…”

Harmonisation of education, training and continuing professional development for laboratory animal caretakers, technicians and technologists: Report of the FELASA-EFAT Working Group

“…Figure 2 represents the increased complexity, and the development in competence, that is expected from the ‘cognition’ phase to the change in behaviour, as is also recognised when training medical professionals. 7 – 9 This process of professional development applies within each of the levels 0–4, although longer periods of work under supervision, and independent practice, will be required for reaching competence at higher levels ( Figure 1 ).…”

Effectivity of Hands-on Near-peer teaching in Scientific Writing for Indian Medical Students

“…49 Such training opportunities should always serve as the bedrock in any kind of curriculum design to allow for optimum skill acquisition. 49,50 The pre-and post-workshop tests were administered using Google forms. The signi cant increase in the scores on the post-workshop test on all modules (p-values < 0.0001) can be attributed to their enhanced understanding of research methodology after the workshop.…”