IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i3p1706-d740688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reliability and Medical Students’ Appreciation of Certainty-Based Marking

Author

Listed:
  • Špela Smrkolj

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Enja Bančov

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Vladimir Smrkolj

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) involves asking students not only the answer to an objective question, but also how certain they are that their answer is correct. In a mixed method design employing an embedded approach with a quasi-experimental design, we have examined the use of CBM during a 5-week Gynaecology and Obstetrics course. The study was conducted as a non-mandatory revision exam with two additional questionnaires on Moodle. Majority of students perceive CBM as fair (78%) and useful (94%). Most students would immediately want CBM to be used for revision exams, but more practice would be needed for CBM to be used in graded exams. The lowest self-evaluation of knowledge was mostly seen by worst (less than 70% Accuracy) and best achievers (more than 90% Accuracy); the worst achievers probably have knowledge gaps, and the best achievers probably correctly guessed at least one question. Our findings conclude that CBM does not discriminate any learner type ( p = 0.932) and does not change the general distribution of the exam scores, since there is no significant differences between Certainty-Based Score ( M = 80.4%, SD = 10.4%) and Accuracy ( M = 79.8%, SD = 11.1%); t (176) = 0.8327, p = 0.4061. These findings are widely applicable, as learner type study models are used extensively in education. In the future, larger samples should be studied and the implementation of CBM on question types other than MCQ should be investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Špela Smrkolj & Enja Bančov & Vladimir Smrkolj, 2022. "The Reliability and Medical Students’ Appreciation of Certainty-Based Marking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1706-:d:740688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1706/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1706/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1706-:d:740688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.