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

Špela Smrkolj, Enja Bančov and Vladimir Smrkolj
Additional contact information
Špela Smrkolj: Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 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

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 3, 1-11

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.

Keywords: certainty-based marking; confidence-based learning; undergraduate medical education; online exam; self-evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1706/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1706/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1706-:d:740688

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().