1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2020
  4. IWISH
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2020.iwish.003

Standardized objective exam vs. high fidelity simulation: two models, same content

  • a Araceli Hambleton Fuentes , 
  • b Jesus Alfonso Beltran-Sanchez
  • a,b Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Ave. Morones Prieto 3000, Monterey, 64710, Mexico
Cite as
Hambleton Fuentes A., Beltran-Sanchez J.A. (2020). Standardized objective exam vs. high fidelity simulation: two models, same content. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Innovative Simulation for Healthcare (IWISH 2020), pp. 13-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2020.iwish.003

Abstract

The evaluation of learning is becoming more relevant in medical education institutions, which has led to a rethinking of the design, application, and research of the process itself. In this study, we conducted A quantitative study with a quasi-experimental design utilizing pre-test and post-test. Twenty medical students enrolled in two classes (groups) in the subject of Respiratory Physiopathology in the Surgeon Medical Program of the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at Tecnologico de Monterrey participated. Three variables were used: 1) the student experience with the evaluation process, 2) learning engagement and 3) burnout syndrome. Three assessment techniques were applied in each group. In both groups, the Portfolio and the Written Examination were generic. The distinction between the two groups was in the application of the third tool. The PEE class (8 students) received the "Standardized Objective Examination." The PSE class (12 students) received the "High Fidelity Simulation." The results indicated that both techniques promoted a sense of student satisfaction, representing an opportunity to demonstrate the development of their competencies. However, in the results of the final overall knowledge review, it was noted that the PEE Group scored higher. Each method offers its advantages in both the assessment and the learning itself. Their utilization will depend on the availability of each institution to define its use according to their goals.

References

  1. Adams, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  2. Prettyman, A. V., Knight, E., & Allison, T. E. (2018). Objective Structured Clinical Examination From Virtually Anywhere! Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 14(8), e157-e163.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2018.05.007
  3. Adib-Hajbaghery, M., & Yazdani, M. (2018). Effects of OSCE on learning, satisfaction, and test anxiety of nursing students: a review study. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 18, 70-83.
    http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-4539-en.html
  4. Argudin Y. (2014). Educación basada en competencias. Nociones y antecedentes. México: Trillas
  5. Carvalho, M. H., Colaço, S., Rafael, H., Baixinho, C. L., Félix, I., Saraiva, C., & Rebelo, I. (2018). Aprender com a Simulação de Alta Fidelidade. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 23(1), 51–59.
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018231.23072017
  6. Dávila A. (2014). Simulación en educación médica. Investigación en educación médica, 3(10), 100-105.
  7. Edmonds, W. A. & Kennedy, T. D. (2019). Quantitative Methods for Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research. In: W. A. Edmonds and T. D. Kennedy, eds. An Applied Guide to Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 29-34
  8. Escudero, E., Silva, M., & Corvetto, M. (2019). Simulation: A Training Resource for Quality Care
    and Improving Patient Safety. In S. Çelik Durmuş (Ed.), Nursing - New Perspectives (1st ed.).
    IntechOpen.
    https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88918
  9. Ferreiro, R. (2012). Cómo ser mejor maestro: El método ELI. México: Trillas
  10. Metzler , Y. A., Groeling-Müller, G., & Bellingrath, S. (2019). Better safe than sorry: Methods for risk assessment of psychosocial hazards. Safety Science, 122-139
  11. Gandia, P, & Romeo, A. (2019). La exigencia cognitiva en los exámenes tipo test en contexto universitario y su relación con los enfoques de aprendizaje, la autorregulación, los métodos docentes y el rendimiento académico. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 9(3), 177-187.
  12. Hambleton, A. & Beltrán, J.A. (2019). “POSE”: una aproximación a la evaluación de competencias preclínicas. 6 to Congreso Internacional de Innovación Educativa, 1673-1678. Dic 16-18,Monterrey, México
  13. Head, K. J. & Harsin, A. M. (2018). Quasi-Experimental Design. In: K. J. Head and A.M. Harsin, eds. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1384-1387
  14. La Cerra, C., Dante, A., Caponnetto, V., Franconi, I., Gaxhja, E., Petrucci, C., Alfes, C. M., & Lancia, L. (2019). Effects of high-fidelity simulation based on life-threatening clinical condition scenarios on learning outcomes of undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 9(2), 1–11.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025306
  15. León-Bórquez, R., Lara-Vélez, V. M. & AbreuHernández, L. F. (2018). Educación médica en México. FEM: Revista de la Fundación Educación Médica, 21(3), 119-128
  16. López, V. & Sicilia A. (2017). Formative and shared assessment in higher education. Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1). 77-97.
  17. López-Sánchez, M., Ramos, L., Pato, O., & López, S. (2013). La simulación clínica como herramienta de aprendizaje. Cirugía Mayor Ambulatoria, 18(1), 25–29
  18. Martínez-Castillo, F., & Matus-Miranda, R. (2015). Desarrollo de habilidades con simulación clínica de alta fidelidad. Perspectiva de los estudiantes de enfermería. Enfermería Universitaria, 12(2), 93–98.
  19. Martos, Á., Pérez-Fuentes, M., del Mar, M., Gázquez, J. J., del Mar, M., & Barragán, A. B. (2018). Burnout y Engagement en estudiantes de Ciencias de la Salud. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 8(1), 23-36.
  20. Urra, U., Sandoval, S. & Irribavent, F. (2017). El desafío y futuro de la simulación como estrategia de enseñanza en enfermería. Investigación en Educación Médica, 6(22), 119-125.
  21. Royce, C., Hayes, M., & Schuartzstein, R. (2019). Teaching Critical Thinking: A case for instruction in cognitive bases to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety. Academic Medicine. 94(2), 187-194
  22. Segura, N., Valencia, J, López, M. (2019). Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico mediante simulación de alta fidelidad en estudiantes de medicina. Investigación en Educación Médica, 7(28), 55-63.
  23. Swanson, D. B., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2013). Assessment of Clinical Skills With Standardized Patients: State of the Art Revisited. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 25(1).
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2013.842916
  24. Turner, J. L., & Dankoski, M. E. (2008). Objective structured clinical exams: A critical review. Family Medicine, 40(8), 574–578.
  25. Javaeed, A. (2018). Assessment of Higher Ordered Thinking in Medical Education: Multiple Choice Questions and Modified Essay Questions. MedEdPublish, 7(2),1-8. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000128.1
  26. Zayyan, M. (2011). Objective structured clinical examination: The assessment of choice. Oman
    Medical Journal, 26(4), 219–222.
    https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2011.55