Computer-based summative assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-method comparison of key feature problems with case-based multiple choice questions

Background: It is yet unclear if there are differences between using electronic key feature problems (KFPs) or electronic case-based multiple choice questions (cbMCQ) for the assessment of clinical decision making. Summary of Work: Fifth year medical students were exposed to clerkships which ended with a summative exam. Assessment of knowledge per exam was done by 6-9 KFPs, 9-20 cbMCQ and 9-28 MC questions. Each KFP consisted of a case vignette and three key features (KF) using “long menu” as question format. We sought students’ perceptions of the KFPs and cbMCQs in focus groups (n of students=39). Furthermore statistical data of 11 exams (n of students=377) concerning the KFPs and (cb)MCQs were compared. Summary of Results: The analysis of the focus groups resulted in four themes reflecting students’ perceptions of KFPs and their comparison with (cb)MCQ: KFPs were perceived as (i) more realistic, (ii) more difficult, (iii) more motivating for the intense study of clinical reasoning than (cb)MCQ and (iv) showed an overall good acceptance when some preconditions are taken into account. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no difference in difficulty; however KFP showed a higher discrimination and reliability (G-coefficient) even when corrected for testing times. Correlation of the different exam parts was intermediate. Conclusions: Students perceived the KFPs as more motivating for the study of clinical reasoning. Statistically KFPs showed a higher discrimination and higher reliability than cbMCQs. Take-home messages: Including KFPs with long menu questions into summative clerkship exams seems to offer positive educational effects.

Computerbasierte Prüfung von klinischem Denken in der klinischen Ausbildung: Ein Mixed-Method Vergleich von Key Feature Problemen mit fallbasierten Multiple Choice Typ A Fragen

Fragestellung/Einleitung: Es ist unklar inwiefern Unterschiede bestehen im Einsatz von Key Feature Problemen (KFP) mit Long Menu Fragen und fallbasierten Typ A Fragen (FTA) für die Überprüfung des klinischen Denkens (Clinical Reasoning) in der klinischen Ausbildung von Medizinstudierenden. Methoden: Medizinstudierende des fünften Studienjahres nahmen an ihrer klinischen Pädiatrie-Rotation teil, die mit einer summativen Prüfung endete. Die Überprüfung des Wissen wurde pro Prüfung elektronisch mit 6-9 KFP [1], [3], 9-20 FTA und 9-28 nichtfallbasierten Multiple Choice Fragen (NFTA) durchgeführt. Jedes KFP bestand aus einer Fallvignette und drei Key Features und nutzen ein sog. Long Menu [4] als Antwortformat. Wir untersuchten die Perzeption der KFP und FTA in Focus Gruppen [2] (n of students=39). Weiterhin wurden die statistischen Kennwerte der KFP und FTA von 11 Prüfungen (n of students=377) verglichen. Ergebnisse: Die Analyse der Fokusgruppen resultierte in vier Themen, die die Perzeption der KFP und deren Vergleich mit FTA darstellten: KFP wurden als 1. realistischer, 2. schwerer, und 3. motivierender für das intensive Selbststudium des klinischen Denkens als FTA aufgenommen und zeigten 4. insgesamt eine gute Akzeptanz sofern gewisse Voraussetzungen berücksichtigt werden. Die statistische Auswertung zeigte keinen Unterschied im Schwierigkeitsgrad; jedoch zeigten die KFP eine höhere Diskrimination und Reliabilität (G-coefficient) selbst wenn für die Prüfungszeit korrigiert wurde. Die Korrelation der verschiedenen Prüfungsteile war mittel. Diskussion/Schlussfolgerung: Die Studierenden erfuhren die KFP als motivierenden für das Selbststudium des klinischen Denkens. Statistisch zeigten die KFP eine grössere Diskrimination und höhere Relibilität als die FTA. Der Einbezug von KFP mit Long Menu in Prüfungen des klinischen Studienabschnitts erscheint vielversprechend und einen „educational effect“ zu haben.

How to use WinEdt 5 as an interface for TDA

The text editor WinEdt 5 may be easily configured to provide a user interface for TDA. The configuration described below allows you to launch TDA command files directly from within WinEdt (via menu or shortcut). TDA's standard output will be written to disk and displayed in WinEdt automatically. Furthermore, you may also just execute selected parts of a command file.

Trust and Reputation in Internet Auctions

Exchange between anonymous actors in Internet auctions corresponds to a one-shot prisoner's dilemma-like situation. Therefore, in any given auction the risk is high that seller and buyer will cheat and, as a consequence, that the market will collapse. However, mutual cooperation can be attained by the simple and very efficient institution of a public rating system. By this system, sellers have incentives to invest in reputation in order to enhance future chances of business. Using data from about 200 auctions of mobile phones we empirically explore the effects of the reputation system. In general, the analysis of nonobtrusive data from auctions may help to gain a deeper understanding of basic social processes of exchange, reputation, trust, and cooperation, and of the impact of institutions on the efficiency of markets. In this study we report empirical estimates of effects of reputation on characteristics of transactions such as the probability of a successful deal, the mode of payment, and the selling price (highest bid). In particular, we try to answer the question whether sellers receive a "premium" for reputation. Our results show that buyers are willing to pay higher prices for reputation in order to diminish the risk of exploitation. On the other hand, sellers protect themselves from cheating buyers by the choice of an appropriate payment mode. Therefore, despite the risk of mutual opportunistic behavior, simple institutional settings lead to cooperation, relatively rare events of fraud, and efficient markets.