↓ Skip to main content

Differential Effects of Two Types of Formative Assessment in Predicting Performance of First-year Medical Students

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, May 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Differential Effects of Two Types of Formative Assessment in Predicting Performance of First-year Medical Students
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, May 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10459-005-5290-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Krasne, Paul F. Wimmers, Anju Relan, Thomas A. Drake

Abstract

Formative assessments are systematically designed instructional interventions to assess and provide feedback on students' strengths and weaknesses in the course of teaching and learning. Despite their known benefits to student attitudes and learning, medical school curricula have been slow to integrate such assessments into the curriculum. This study investigates how performance on two different modes of formative assessment relate to each other and to performance on summative assessments in an integrated, medical-school environment. Two types of formative assessment were administered to 146 first-year medical students each week over 8 weeks: a timed, closed-book component to assess factual recall and image recognition, and an un-timed, open-book component to assess higher order reasoning including the ability to identify and access appropriate resources and to integrate and apply knowledge. Analogous summative assessments were administered in the ninth week. Models relating formative and summative assessment performance were tested using Structural Equation Modeling. Two latent variables underlying achievement on formative and summative assessments could be identified; a "formative-assessment factor" and a "summative-assessment factor," with the former predicting the latter. A latent variable underlying achievement on open-book formative assessments was highly predictive of achievement on both open- and closed-book summative assessments, whereas a latent variable underlying closed-book assessments only predicted performance on the closed-book summative assessment. Formative assessments can be used as effective predictive tools of summative performance in medical school. Open-book, un-timed assessments of higher order processes appeared to be better predictors of overall summative performance than closed-book, timed assessments of factual recall and image recognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 35 28%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Social Sciences 21 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 28 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2013.
All research outputs
#6,824,209
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#365
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,918
of 66,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 66,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them