Alan Jaap1, Avril Dewar2, Colin Duncan2, Karen Fairhurst2, David Hope2, David Kluth2. 1. Medical Education, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. alan.jaap@ed.ac.uk. 2. Medical Education, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of remote online delivery of summative assessments has been underexplored in medical education. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all end of year applied knowledge multiple choice question (MCQ) tests at one UK medical school were switched from on campus to remote assessments. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of student experience with remote exam delivery and compared test performance in remote versus invigilated campus-based forms of similar assessments for Year 4 and 5 students across two academic years. RESULTS: Very few students experienced technical or practical problems in completing their exam remotely. Test anxiety was reduced for some students but increased for others. The majority of students preferred the traditional setting of invigilated exams in a computer lab, feeling this ensured an even playing field for all candidates. Mean score was higher for Year 4 students in the remotely-delivered versus campus-based form of the same exam (76.53% [SD 6.57] vs. 72.81% [6.64]; t438.38 = 5.94, p = 0.001; d = 0.56), whereas candidate performance was equivalent across both forms for Year 5 students. CONCLUSIONS: Remote online MCQ exam delivery is an effective and generally acceptable approach to summative assessment, and could be used again in future without detriment to students if onsite delivery is not possible.
BACKGROUND: The use of remote online delivery of summative assessments has been underexplored in medical education. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all end of year applied knowledge multiple choice question (MCQ) tests at one UK medical school were switched from on campus to remote assessments. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of student experience with remote exam delivery and compared test performance in remote versus invigilated campus-based forms of similar assessments for Year 4 and 5 students across two academic years. RESULTS: Very few students experienced technical or practical problems in completing their exam remotely. Test anxiety was reduced for some students but increased for others. The majority of students preferred the traditional setting of invigilated exams in a computer lab, feeling this ensured an even playing field for all candidates. Mean score was higher for Year 4 students in the remotely-delivered versus campus-based form of the same exam (76.53% [SD 6.57] vs. 72.81% [6.64]; t438.38 = 5.94, p = 0.001; d = 0.56), whereas candidate performance was equivalent across both forms for Year 5 students. CONCLUSIONS: Remote online MCQ exam delivery is an effective and generally acceptable approach to summative assessment, and could be used again in future without detriment to students if onsite delivery is not possible.