Percepción de examen oral estandarizado vs no estandarizado en el internado de medicina interna

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Students' perceptions comparing standardized and non-standardized oral exams in internal medicine Background: Oral examinations are a useful tool to appraise certain medical skills compared to other examinations. However, they have some disadvantages that might be reduced with standardization. Aim: To compare students' perception comparing a standardized oral exam (SOE) versus a traditional, non-standardized oral exam (NSOE). Material and Methods: During the first semester of 2013 a NSOE was applied to internal medicine undergraduate students. During the second semester, a SOE was applied. An anonymous and voluntary perception questionnaire, consisting in 10 questions based on a 5-level Likert scale, was answered by these students. Statistical analysis was done using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Among the 118 students, 50.8% were evaluated using NSOE and 49.2% using SOE. Questionnaire response rate was 84%. Among respondents, 52% took the SOE and 48%, the NSOE. Students evaluated using SOE perceived that the degree of complexity of clinical cases was similar for all examinees (p < 0.05), that exam duration was standardized (p < 0.05), and that grades obtained were less influenced by the clinical site where the exam was taken (p < 0.05). However, anxiety level remained high in both groups, as well as the overall satisfaction experience. Conclusions: Standardization of an oral examination improves the perception of medical students about levels of difficulty, duration and external influences on the final grade. (Rev Med Chile 2015; 143: 841-846)

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pérez H., I., Vergara R., C., Goens G., C., Viviani G., P., & Letelier S., L. M. (2015). Percepción de examen oral estandarizado vs no estandarizado en el internado de medicina interna. Revista Medica de Chile, 143(7), 841–846. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872015000700003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free