FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2300991451> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2300991451 abstract "Background and purpose: Partial knowledge is one of the main factors to be considered when dealing with the improvement of the administration of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) in testing. Various strategies have been proposed for this factor in the traditional testing environment. Therefore, this study proposed a Confidence Based Assessment (CBA) as a pertinent solution and aims at comparing the effect of the CBA Scoring system with that of the conventional scoring systems (with and without negative score estimation as penalty) on the students’ scores and estimating their partial knowledge on clinical studies. Methods: This comparative study was conducted using a standardized clinical knowledge exam for 117 clinical students. After two-step training, both the conventional MCQ and CBA examination was given in a single session simultaneously. The exam included 100 questions and the volunteers were requested to complete a questionnaire regarding their attitude and satisfaction on their first experience of the CBA after exam. A new confidence based marking system was selected for the scoring, which was a hybrid of the UCL and MUK2010 systems. The MCQ-Assistant, SPSS and Microsoft office Excel software were used for scoring and data analysis. Results: The mean age of the volunteers was 27.3±5.47, of whom 43.6% were men and 69.2% were senior medical students. Exam reliability was 0.977. The fit line of the MCQ scores without penalty estimation was R 2 =0.9816 and Intercept=18.125 or approximately.2 deviation in the low scores. The MCQ scoring with penalty had a fit line approximately parallel to the 45-degree line but on or above it and the CBA scoring fit line was nearer to the 45-degree line, parallel to it and a little below it. These two sets of scores had a significant p value0.037. The response percentage to the CBA is higher (p value=0.0001). The discrimination power of the MCQ and the CBA for the upper and lower 1/3 of the students was not significantly different (p value=0.34). The students’ satisfaction score was high and acceptable to the CBA system and expressed a positive perspective on this system for their examinations. Conclusions: The CBA method can increase the competencies of the MCQ exams. It was found to have a greater fairness assessment, was an effective examination, an authentic testing method, with precise estimation and higher constructs validity than the conventional MCQ exam. The CBA simulate the reflection for deeper learning among the students." @default.
• W2300991451 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2300991451 creator A5041702918 @default.
• W2300991451 creator A5043783732 @default.
• W2300991451 creator A5067256027 @default.
• W2300991451 creator A5075191645 @default.
• W2300991451 date "2015-06-01" @default.
• W2300991451 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2300991451 title "A Comparative Study between the Conventional MCQ Scores and MCQ with the CBA Scores at the Standardized Clinical Knowledge Exam for Clinical Medical Students" @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1802255443 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1969904719 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1973484954 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1977959416 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1981380475 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1991382527 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W1996344021 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2040571917 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2041416125 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2048548923 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2056745663 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2104100837 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2128157466 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2142143452 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2331549977 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W2419895566 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W407100778 @default.
• W2300991451 cites W594394683 @default.
• W2300991451 doi "https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v14i1.8027" @default.
• W2300991451 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2300991451 type Work @default.
• W2300991451 sameAs 2300991451 @default.
• W2300991451 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2300991451 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2300991451 hasAuthorship W2300991451A5041702918 @default.
• W2300991451 hasAuthorship W2300991451A5043783732 @default.
• W2300991451 hasAuthorship W2300991451A5067256027 @default.
• W2300991451 hasAuthorship W2300991451A5075191645 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C176730311 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C2984538763 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C3018023364 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C121332964 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C126322002 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C15744967 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C163258240 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C176730311 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C19527891 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C2984538763 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C3018023364 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C43214815 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C44249647 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C509550671 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C62520636 @default.
• W2300991451 hasConceptScore W2300991451C71924100 @default.
• W2300991451 hasLocation W23009914511 @default.
• W2300991451 hasOpenAccess W2300991451 @default.
• W2300991451 hasPrimaryLocation W23009914511 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W1519851042 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W1574580828 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W1964889269 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W1968629470 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W1987934384 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2030121939 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2137329344 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2183096291 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2184785873 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2185860900 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2375765083 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2595358356 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2742592150 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2903165746 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2975346557 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W2998286648 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W3025817835 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W3084313251 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W3111691945 @default.
• W2300991451 hasRelatedWork W3127024416 @default.
• W2300991451 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2300991451 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2300991451 magId "2300991451" @default.
• W2300991451 workType "article" @default.