Are we ready to replace physical mock exam with an online mock exam? a survey-based comparison

Chaitanya Sabnis; Abhijit Patil; Abhishek Singh; Arvind Ganpule

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20244113

Authors

Chaitanya Sabnis Medical Officer, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat India
Abhijit Patil Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat India
Abhishek Singh Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat India
Arvind Ganpule Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20244113

Keywords:

Online mock exam, Online teaching, Online training

Abstract

Background: Mock exams have become an integral part of urology training, presently conducted in a real classroom (physical mock exam- PME). We conducted a mock exam in a virtual classroom (online mock exam- OME) for 130 urology residents. A survey was conducted to compare OME and PME.

Methods: Questionnaire was developed, consisting of 16 questions, of which two question were matrix, others had options. For the matrix questions the candidates had to rate the components of the PME and OME on a scale of 1 to 5.

Results: Out of the 130, 103 (86.55%) were eligible for analysis. Regarding, ease of understanding the question and fulfilling the expectations both modalities were rated highly (95.15% versus 93.2%, p=0.552 and 89.32 versus 83.5%, p=0.221). OME fared better than PME, with regards to the questions addressing; ease of understanding the explanation (p=0.000), fluency of interaction (p=0.000), ability to concentrate (p=0.002), feeling of involvement (p=0.000), logistic convenience (p=0.001), ability to network and ability to balance commitments (p=0.000). PME was superior in interacting with peers (p=0.000), and peer motivation helping them concentrate better (p=0.001). Out of the 103 respondents 79 (66.39%) recommended an OME for future.

Conclusions: Online platform can be effectively used to conduct a mock exam. It is not only noninferior to PME but also has many advantages. This survey shows OME has a potential to replace PME.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Choules AP. The use of e-learning in medical education: a review of the current situation. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(978):212-6.

Deming DJ, Goldin C, Katz LF, Yuchtman N. Can online learning bend the higher education cost curve? Am Econ Rev. 2015;105(5):496-501.

Cowen T, Tabarrok A. The industrial organization of online education. Am Econ Rev. 2014;104(5):519-22.

Christensen CM, Eyring HJ. The innovative university: changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. John Wiley and Sons; 2011.

Halbesleben JR, Whitman MV. Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(3):913-30.

Legemate JD, Zanetti SP, Freund JE, Baard J, de la Rosette JJ. Surgical teaching in urology: patient safety and educational value of ‘LIVE’ and ‘SEMI-LIVE’ surgical demonstrations. World J Urol. 2018;36(10):1673-9.

Sinha S, Yande S, Patel A, Vaze A, Sarkar K, Raina S, et al. The Urological Society of India survey on urinary incontinence practice patterns among urologists. Indian J Urol. 2018;34(3):202.

Nabi G. Editorial Comment: Questionnaire survey-based research: Is there a need for consensus? Indian J Urol. 2018;34(3).

Whicher D, Wu AW. Ethics review of survey research: a mandatory requirement for publication?. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8:477-82.

Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:261‐6.

Davern M. Nonresponse rates are a problematic indicator of nonresponse bias in survey research. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:905‐12.

Wander GS, Jadhav UM, Chemburkar A, Lopez M, Gogtay J. Lipid management in India: a nationwide, cross-sectional physician survey. Lipids Health Dis. 2017;16(1):130.

Maloney S, Haas R, Keating J, Molloy E, Jolly B, Sims J. Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for health professionals. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e47.

Pei L, Wu H. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ Online. 2019;24(1):1666538.

Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181-96.

O’Doherty D, Dromey M, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, McGrath D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education- an integrative review. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):130.