Validity is whether the tool measures what is supposed to measure and the reliability is the ratio of the true score variance to the observed score variance. Some educationists use the reliability coefficient to measure reliability. Reliability is the ratio of the true score variance to the observed score variance, it can be measured with Cronbach alpha which measures the internal consistency of marks of an assessment tool, a value with 0.8 or more considered reliable. It should not be influenced by age, gender, race, or socioeconomic status. Generally, viva usually assesses knowledge (recall), in-depth clinical reasoning and attitude of the candidate on specific topics, and self-confidence which cannot be assessed by written exams. Structured viva has the advantage of being structured, objective and it is claimed to be fair and reliable, but this was not confirmed by an overall decision such as a systematic review or meta-analysis of the studies. Structured viva was properly described as a separate assessment tool by Oakley and Hencken in 2005, but it was described and used in health professions education as early as 1993 by Thomas et al. However, studies have shown that the validity and reliability can be increased by using structured standardized or structured formulae. The disadvantages of traditional viva include poor content validity, low inter-rater and inter-case reliability, inconsistency in marking, and lack of standardization. It is usually used in situations like the decision to pass or fail marginal students in basic sciences, giving a prize to the best student as well as in defending the theses. Viva or oral examination is popular as it is a part of many undergraduate and postgraduate programs in health professions education. Traditional Viva, Viva-voce, or traditional oral.Įxamination is a process between the examiners who ask questions and a candidate who must. Structured viva or structured oral examination has high levels of validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education compared to traditional viva.Īssessment of the students is a cornerstone in medical education science and thus proper.Īssessment is crucial to get quality medical graduates who eventually meet society’s needs and promote the health of the community. The heterogeneity of the data was high (I^2 = 93.506, P < 0.001) thus the analysis was done using the binary random-effects model. In the meta-analysis, structured viva was found to be acceptable by overall acceptability of (79.8%, P < 0.001) out of all learners who participated in structured viva as examinees at different levels in health professions education using the available numeric data of 12 studies. In the reviewed studies, the reliability of structured viva was high by Cronbach alpha α = 0.80 and α = 0.75 in two different settings, while it was low α = 0.50 for the traditional viva. Three of the reviewed studies showed higher validity of structured viva by a positive linear correlation coefficient compared with MCQs, MCQs and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and structured theory exam. ResultsĪ total of 1385 studies were identified. Data analysis was done by the OpenMeta Analyst open-source app, version Windows 10. PubMed, Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) website reviews, Google Scholars, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for any article addressing the research questions from inception to December 2022. This systematic review was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The research aims to investigate the studies to reach an overall decision regarding the quality of structured viva as an assessment tool according to the agreed standards in medical education in terms of validity, reliability, and acceptability. In order to overcome these disadvantages, structured viva was invented and is claimed to be highly valid, reliable, and acceptable, but this was not confirmed by an overall systematic review or meta-analysis of the studies. While traditional viva has many disadvantages, including subjectivity, low validity, and low reliability, it is advantageous for assessing knowledge, clinical reasoning, and self-confidence, which cannot be assessed by written tests. The viva, or traditional oral examination, is a process where the examiners ask questions and the candidate answers them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |