My opinion
 

By Dr. P Ravi Shankar , Dr. Arun K Dubey
Corresponding Author Dr. P Ravi Shankar
Xavier University School of Medicine , #23, Santa Helenastraat - Aruba
Submitting Author Dr. P Ravi Shankar
Other Authors Dr. Arun K Dubey
Xavier University School of Medicine , - Aruba

MEDICAL EDUCATION

Assessment, Basic sciences, Caribbean, Nepal

Shankar P, Dubey AK. Medical Student Assessment in the Basic Sciences in Nepal and the Caribbean: Personal Observations. WebmedCentral MEDICAL EDUCATION 2013;4(3):WMC004097
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2013.004097

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
No
Submitted on: 04 Mar 2013 06:22:22 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Mar 2013 06:37:17 AM GMT

My opinion


Abstract:

Medical student assessment has received a lot of attention recently. The issues of objectivity and subjectivity and extrapolating the results of assessment to actual conditions of practice are important. In both Nepal and the Caribbean the basic science subjects are taught during the first two years of the undergraduate medical course. In the present article the authors share their personal observations on basic science assessment in these two regions. In Nepal assessment uses a greater diversity of methods and is largely subjective. There is greater emphasis on community medicine and viva-voce continues to be an important assessment method. In the Caribbean the major focus is towards preparing students for the USMLE step 1 exam and multiple choice questions are the major assessment method. Other methods of assessment being introduced at the Xavier University School of Medicine are also described.    

In recent years medical student assessment has received a lot of attention. The major challenge in medical student assessment is deciding whether performance of a student under standardized conditions can predict his/her future performance in medical practice.1 The principles of fairness and reliability may dictate that all students be tested on the same set of patients and be graded objectively by an observer or even better by a machine. The problem in extrapolating the results of this standardized assessment may be that in real life a doctor will be dealing with non-standardized patients who will nearly always present with a unique set of signs and symptoms; patients and others will most often judge the doctor’s performance using subjective personal criteria.      

We have had a long association with medical schools in Nepal and the Caribbean. In this article we share our impressions of assessment in the basic sciences in these two regions. The regions are similar in that a good percentage of students from other countries come to this region to study. Also the basic science subjects are taught during the first two years (four semesters) with a fifth semester in Caribbean schools being devoted to preparing for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1. In Nepal most medical schools are in the private sector and are affiliated to two universities, Kathmandu University and Tribhuvan University.2

The major difference we have noted in assessment is that in Nepal short answer questions (SAQs) and modified essay questions (MEQs) are the major assessment methods used while in the Caribbean multiple choice questions (MCQs) predominate. In the Caribbean with majority of students originating from the United States (US) the USMLE step 1 casts a long shadow over assessment methods and teaching-learning. The majority of questions follow the USMLE format with a clinical vignette for a stem and five choices for answers.

The assessment in basic sciences in Nepal uses a greater variety of methods ranging from SAQs to practical assessment to viva-voce. The methods used are more subjective with the examiners making a judgment about the students. MCQs are not frequently used though recently Kathmandu University has introduced MCQs. The drawback is that assessment can be subjective and vary from student to student. There is a lack of guidelines to assess the answers and hence marking can vary according to the examiner. Community medicine occupies an important part in the curriculum and there are marks provided for community health exercises and community diagnosis though the emphasis on and implementation of community-based learning may vary between schools. A problem affecting assessment could be an ‘unholy’ understanding between the internal examiners from the institution and the external examiner nominated by the university with an intention to pass the maximum number of students. Also examiners being human beings differ from each other with some being lenient and others being stricter affecting the exam marks and the results. Another problem is the long duration of the examination with a separate day being allotted for ‘practical’ examinations in each subject and the need to stagger examinations in different institutions with regard to the availability of examiners.     

The major benefit we feel of the Nepalese exam system is that it encourages students to write and put down their thoughts on paper. In today’s modern digital age we rarely ‘write’ in the traditional sense of the term. Overemphasis on MCQs throughout the education system in some countries has resulted in students who are unable to put their words together in a logical and proper sequence to construct sentences and paragraphs. Also students face a ‘viva voce’ (again a much criticized and non-standardized assessment system) with examiners, developing the skills of accurately analyzing and responding to questions and conveying information within a limited time frame. We feel the viva-voce if properly used is a powerful assessment tool where a skilled examiner makes a judgment about the candidate. However, a recent article states that viva-voce examinations show a general tendency towards leniency with examiners indulging in giving high marks to enable an otherwise undeserving candidate to pass.3,4 This may also be true in Nepal where there is a general tendency towards leniency in undergraduate medical examinations due to various reasons. Integrity of examiners and a willingness to take ‘tough’ decisions may be needed.  

In Nepal the quality of practical teaching-learning and the exercises carried out during the practical examination vary widely between medical schools and external examiners give a very high weightage to student performance in the viva-voce conducted by them with regard to making pass fail decisions. This is especially true if they have doubts about the standard of the questions and activities set for the practical examination.              

In the Caribbean, students mostly from the US or Canada complete four or five semesters of study in an ‘offshore’ medical school and then appear for their USMLE step 1 examination.5 After passing this examination students do their clinical training in a set of affiliated hospitals in the US. The teaching-learning at the schools mainly focuses towards coaching students to obtain a good score in the step 1 exam. More than half the graduates from Caribbean medical schools are practicing in primary care specialties and are making a big contribution to the primary care workforce of the United States.6 Compared to Nepal class sizes in the Caribbean are smaller. There is also more emphasis on student presentations and assessment is mainly through quizzes and performance in periodic exams which use exclusively MCQs framed following the USMLE pattern. The test is conducted using a computer program and students obtain their scores immediately on completion. The system is objective, transparent and not influenced by examiner ‘biases’. Also it tests the ability of students to assimilate information and concepts learned and apply it to a clinical scenario.

The drawback is MCQs are often the only or the predominant method of assessment. There is very little emphasis on ‘writing’ in the traditional sense of the term so students often find it difficult to put down their thoughts in a logical sequence and find answering SAQs very difficult. Also the emphasis on public health and community medicine in the curriculum is less compared to Nepal and there are no community diagnosis programs or community visits. We feel the involvement with the local community is lesser compared to Nepalese schools. At the Xavier University School of Medicine (XUSOM) we conduct a health fair every semester where students interact with the local community. The emphasis on rational use of medicines and on essential medicines is low following the US pattern.  

At present we are in the process of introducing other assessment methods also. We have introduced audience response technology (ARS) in two semesters (third and fourth) to improve student participation in the classroom and are also using the clickers for quizzes and assessments. ARS has been shown to be a valuable technology which increases student engagement and stimulates discussion but teachers may need to be technically and pedagogically well prepared to use the tool.7 A recent review examines the benefits of ARS on learning.8 ARS will be introduced in other semesters in XUSOM in a phased manner. Formative assessment using objective criteria has been introduced during the small group activity-based sessions in pharmacology and medical humanities. We are also planning to introduce other methods of assessment like grading participation in student seminars, PBL sessions and even use short answer questions for assessment. Students undergo a period of observership in the hospital where they are assessed by doctors, nurses and other health personnel. 

Conclusion


Both assessment systems have their strengths and weaknesses and indicate the importance of having a mixed system of assessment using a variety of methods as has been advocated in the literature. We feel both systems could learn from each other to reduce their weaknesses and improve their strengths

References


1. Singh T. Student assessment: Issues and dilemmas regarding objectivity. National Medical Journal of India 2012;25;287-290.
2. Shankar PR, Thapa TP. Student perception about working in rural Nepal after graduation: A study among first and second year medical students. Human Resources for Health 2012;10:27.
3. Torke S, Abraham RR, Ramnarayan K, Asha K. The impact of viva-voce-voce examination on students’ performance in theory component of the final summative examination in physiology. J Physiol Pathophysiol. 2010;1:10–2.
4. Ghosh A, Mandal A, Das N, Tripathi SK, Biswas A, Bera T. Students' performance in written and viva-voce components of final summative pharmacology examination in MBBS curriculum: A critical insight. Indian J Pharmacol. 2012 Mar;44(2):274-5.
5. Eckhert NL. Perspective: private schools of the Caribbean: outsourcing medical education. Acad Med. 2010 Apr;85(4):622-30.
6. van Zanten M, Boulet JR. Medical education in the Caribbean: quantifying the contribution of Caribbean-educated physicians to the primary care workforce in the United States. Acad Med. 2013 Feb;88(2):276-81.
7. Jensen JV, Ostergaard D, Faxholt AK. Good experiences with an audience response system used in medical education. Dan Med Bull. 2011 Nov;58(11):A4333.
8. Boscardin C, Penuel W. Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: a review of the literature. Acad Psychiatry. 2012 Sep 1;36(5):401-7.

Source(s) of Funding


None

Competing Interests


None declared

Disclaimer


This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

Comments
0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.

 

Author Comments
1 comment posted so far

 

What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
Where
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)