Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.

Several methods have been proposed for analyzing differences between test scores, such as using mean scores, cumulative deviation, and mixed-effect models. Here, we explore the pooled analysis of retested Progress Test items to monitor the performance of first-year medical students who were exposed...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho, Pedro Luiz Toledo de Arruda Lourenção, Joélcio Francisco Abbade, Dario Cecílio-Fernandes, Jacqueline Teixeira Caramori, Angélica Maria Bicudo
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e65eec079000462eb28fd0bea5f21229
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e65eec079000462eb28fd0bea5f21229
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e65eec079000462eb28fd0bea5f212292021-12-02T20:06:18ZExploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0257293https://doaj.org/article/e65eec079000462eb28fd0bea5f212292021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257293https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Several methods have been proposed for analyzing differences between test scores, such as using mean scores, cumulative deviation, and mixed-effect models. Here, we explore the pooled analysis of retested Progress Test items to monitor the performance of first-year medical students who were exposed to a new curriculum design. This was a cross-sectional study of students in their first year of a medical program who participated in the annual interinstitutional Progress Tests from 2013 to 2019. We analyzed the performance of first-year students in the 2019 test and compared it with that of first-year students taking the test from 2013 to 2018 and encountering the same items. For each item, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals; we also performed meta-analyses with fixed effects for each content area in the pooled analysis and presented the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In all, we used 63 items, which were divided into basic sciences, internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health. Significant differences were found between groups in basic sciences (OR = 1.172 [CI95% 1.005 CI 1.366], p = 0.043) and public health (OR = 1.54 [CI95% CI 1.25-1.897], p < 0.001), which may reflect the characteristics of the new curriculum. Thus, pooled analysis of pretested items may provide indicators of different performance. This method may complement analysis of score differences on benchmark assessments.Pedro Tadao Hamamoto FilhoPedro Luiz Toledo de Arruda LourençãoJoélcio Francisco AbbadeDario Cecílio-FernandesJacqueline Teixeira CaramoriAngélica Maria BicudoPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 9, p e0257293 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho Pedro Luiz Toledo de Arruda Lourenção Joélcio Francisco Abbade Dario Cecílio-Fernandes Jacqueline Teixeira Caramori Angélica Maria Bicudo Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
description	Several methods have been proposed for analyzing differences between test scores, such as using mean scores, cumulative deviation, and mixed-effect models. Here, we explore the pooled analysis of retested Progress Test items to monitor the performance of first-year medical students who were exposed to a new curriculum design. This was a cross-sectional study of students in their first year of a medical program who participated in the annual interinstitutional Progress Tests from 2013 to 2019. We analyzed the performance of first-year students in the 2019 test and compared it with that of first-year students taking the test from 2013 to 2018 and encountering the same items. For each item, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals; we also performed meta-analyses with fixed effects for each content area in the pooled analysis and presented the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In all, we used 63 items, which were divided into basic sciences, internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health. Significant differences were found between groups in basic sciences (OR = 1.172 [CI95% 1.005 CI 1.366], p = 0.043) and public health (OR = 1.54 [CI95% CI 1.25-1.897], p < 0.001), which may reflect the characteristics of the new curriculum. Thus, pooled analysis of pretested items may provide indicators of different performance. This method may complement analysis of score differences on benchmark assessments.
format	article
author	Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho Pedro Luiz Toledo de Arruda Lourenção Joélcio Francisco Abbade Dario Cecílio-Fernandes Jacqueline Teixeira Caramori Angélica Maria Bicudo
author_facet	Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho Pedro Luiz Toledo de Arruda Lourenção Joélcio Francisco Abbade Dario Cecílio-Fernandes Jacqueline Teixeira Caramori Angélica Maria Bicudo
author_sort	Pedro Tadao Hamamoto Filho
title	Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
title_short	Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
title_full	Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
title_fullStr	Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
title_full_unstemmed	Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
title_sort	exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e65eec079000462eb28fd0bea5f21229
work_keys_str_mv	AT pedrotadaohamamotofilho exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns AT pedroluiztoledodearrudalourencao exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns AT joelciofranciscoabbade exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns AT darioceciliofernandes exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns AT jacquelineteixeiracaramori exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns AT angelicamariabicudo exploringpooledanalysisofpretesteditemstomonitortheperformanceofmedicalstudentsexposedtodifferentcurriculumdesigns
_version_	1718375394452701184

Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.

Ejemplares similares