Abstract
We compared quantitative and qualitative feedback between paper-scoring sheets versus iPads™ across two consecutive years of a final year MBChB (UK medical degree) Objective Structured Clinical Examination. Quality of comments (using a validated five-point rating scale), number of examiner comments and number of words were compared across both methods of recording assessment performance using chi-squared analysis and independent t-test. We also explored relationships between student performance (checklist and global scoring) and feedback. Data from 190 students (2850 paper scored interactions) in 2015 and 193 (2895 iPad™ scored interactions) in 2016 were analysed. Overall, a greater number of comments were given with iPad™ compared to written (42% versus 20%; p < 0.001) but the quality of feedback did not differ significantly. For both written and electronic feedback, students with low global scores were more likely to receive comments (p < 0.001). The use of iPads™ in high stakes assessment increases the quantity of feedback compared to traditional paper scoring sheets. The quantity and quality of feedback for poorer performing candidates (by global score) were also better with iPad™ feedback.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
