Comparison of Analytic Indices of In-person vs. Online Exams in an Iranian Medical University in the Academic Year 2020

Malek Pourafshar, Reza; Shojaeipour, Reza; Khazaeli, Payam; Bazrafshan, Azam; Beigzadeh, Amin; Dehghani, Mahmood Reza

doi:10.22062/sdme.2020.91451

Comparison of Analytic Indices of In-person vs. Online Exams in an Iranian Medical University in the Academic Year 2020

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Reza Malek Pourafshar ¹

Reza Shojaeipour ²

Payam Khazaeli ³

Azam Bazrafshan ⁴

Amin Beigzadeh ⁵

Mahmood Reza Dehghani ⁶

¹ Professor of Pathology, Medical Education Leadership and Management Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

² PhD Candidate, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

³ Professor of Pharmaceutics, Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁴ Master of Library Science, Neuroscience Research Center, Neuropharmacology Research Institute, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁵ PhD in Medical Education, Assistant Professor, Medical Education Leadership and Management Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁶ General Practitioner, Master of Medical Education, Instructor, Medical Education Leadership and Management Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22062/sdme.2020.91451

Abstract

Background: Currently, many medical universities in Iran use e-learning programs to educate and evaluate students. This teaching and assessment method is highly significant during the coronavirus epidemic.
Objectives: The present study was conducted to compare the analytic indices of in-person vs. online exams at the Kerman University of Medical Sciences, (KUMS), Iran.
Method: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020. The study samples included all exams given at the KMUS and midterm exam scores obtained from in-person and online courses in the first and second semesters in the academic year 2019-2020. The exams were selected based on courses, and the same courses were offered both in-person and online; thus, only one group was studied. Course exam indicators, including difficulty and discriminative index, were examined. Data analyzed using SPSS software version 22.
Results: The mean of the difficulty index related to in-person and online exams were (0.62 ± 0.1) and (0.68 ± 0.1), respectively. (P=0.01). The mean of the discriminative index related to in-person (0.30± 0.07) and online (0.33± 0.08) exams had no statistically significant difference (P˃0.05). The frequency of easy questions in online exams was significantly higher, (55% vs. 43%) (p = 0.008). The frequency of questions with an appropriate discriminative index was significantly higher for in-person exams compared to online exams (58% vs. 54%) (p = 0.01).
Conclusion: The difficulty index was acceptable and appropriate for both in-person and online exams. Both exams had appropriate quality according to the discriminative index .Therefore, it seems that e-learning programs and assessments can be a good alternative to in-person teaching in emergencies.

Keywords

Online education

student evaluation

coronavirus

online exam

difficulty index

discriminative index

1. Ehlers UD, Hilera JR. Special issue on quality in e-learning. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning. 2012; 28(1): 1-3. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00448.x
2. Vafaee Najar A, Mohammadi M, Khiabani B, Ibrahimpour H. Attitude
and Performance of Faculties Towards the Implementation of the
Electronic Learning System (ELS) in Mashhad University of Medical
Sciences (MUMS) in 2009. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2011;
11(2): 120-7. [In Persian]
3. Saatz I, Kienle A. Increasing quality in large scale university courses.
Eleed. 2013; 9(1).
4. Cidral WA, Oliveria T, Di Felice M, Aparicio M. E-learning success
determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers and Education. 2018;
122: 273-90. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001
5. Hadullo K, Oboko R, Omwenga E. Factors affecting asynchronous
e-learning quality in developing countries university settings. International
journal of Education and Development using ICT. 2018; 14(1): 152-63.
6. Masoumi D, Lindstrom B. Quality in e-learning: a framework for
promoting and assuring quality in virtual institutions. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning. 2012; 28(1): 27-41. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00440.x
7. Manavifar L, Jamali J. Advantages and Disadvantages of Blended Teaching
Method of Online and Face to Face for Practical Course of Hematology
the Viewpoints of Laboratory Sciences Students in Mashhad University
of Medical Sciences in 2011. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2012;
12(8): 619-28. [In Persian]
8. Keshavarz M, Rahimi M, Esmaeili Z. The Effect of e-Learning on the
Academic Development of University Students. jms. 2013; 1(2) :13-21. [In
Persian]
9. Haghani F, Rezaei H, Beigzadeh A, Eghbali B. Flipped Classroom: A
Pedagogical Method. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2016; 16: 104-
19. [In Persian]. PMCID: 27583990
10. Beigzadeh A, Rahimi M. The Use of Games in Medical Education. Res
Dev Med Educ. 2015; 4(1): 1-2. doi: 10.15171/rdme.2015.001
11. Beigzadeh A, Haghani F. Active Learning Methods: A Way Of Tackling
Large Classroom Setting, Perspective. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2016; 13(1):
107-13.
12. UNESCO. COVID-19 Educational disruption and response. [Cited
2020 March 25]. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/themes/educationemergencies/
coronavirus-school-closures.
13. Gewin V: Five tips for moving teaching online as COVID-19 takes
hold . Nature. 2020; 580: 295-6. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00896-7
PMid:32210377
14. Lau J, Rudrani Dasgupta B Y. Will the coronavirus make online
education go viral?. [Cited 2020 March 24]. Available from:https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/features/will-coronavirus-make-onlineeducationgo-
viral.
15. Sepasi H. A study of cognitive domain and analysis of psychometric
characteristics of test items in final examinations of Arabic, calculus and
biology courses of the third grade high school girls in different sicioeconomic
status in Khuzestan, Iran. Quarterly Journal of Education and
Psychology 2007; 13(4): 57-78. [In Persian]
16. Baharvand M, Hoseinzadeh M, Jaberiansari Z, Abbaszadeh E,
Mortazavi H. Evaluation of 30 Structural Validity and Content Quality
Indices of Theoretical Dental Exams. Journal of Mashhad Dental School.
2014; 38(4): 291-302. [In Persian]
17. Emamjomeh MM, Zahedifar F. Analysis of multiple choice questions on
health sciences at health faculty of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences
(2009). J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2012; 15(4): 108-10. [In Persian]
18. Crisp G, Palmer E. Engaging Academics with a Simplified Analysis of
their Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessment Results. Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2007; 4(2): 88-106.
19. Hosseini Teshnizi S, Zare S , Solati dehkordi S M. Quality analysis
of multiple choice questions(MCQs) examinations of noncontinuous
undergraduate medical records, Hormozgan Med J. 2010; 14(3): 177-83.
[In Persian]
20. Seif A. Educational Measurement, Assessment and Evaluation. 3 rd ed.
Tehran: Agah Co; 2007. 60-132. [In Persian]
21. Fealy S, Safar Pour S, RasouliAzar S. Effective factors on students’
cheatingbehaviors on exams: A case study of Gorgan Islamic Azad
University. IRPHE. 2014; 20(1): 57-77. [In Persian].
22. Hewitt-Taylor J. Facilitating distance learning in nurse education.
Nurse Educ Pract. 2003; 3(1): 23-9. doi: 10.1016/s1471-5953(02)00052-5.

PMID: 19036314
23. Saeedinejat S, Vafaeenajar A. The Effect of E-Learning on Students'
Educational Success. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2011; 11(1):
1-9. [In Persian]. PMID: 27012245 PMCID: PMC4807545
24. Thurmond VA. Defining interaction and strategies to enhance
interactions in Web-based courses. Nurse Educ. 2003; 28(5): 237-41. doi:
10.1097/00006223-200309000-00013. PMID: 14506357
25. Okhovati M, YazdiFeyzabadi V, Beigzadeh A, Shokoohi M,
Mehrolhassani MH. Evaluating the Program of Bachelor Degree in Health
Services Management at Kerman University of Medical Sciences Iran
Using the CIPP Model (Context Input Process Product). Strides Dev Med
Educ. 2014; 11(1): 101-13. [In Persian].
26. Bazrafshan A, Haghdoost A, Rezaie H, Beigzadeh A. A practical
framework for evaluating health services management educational
program: The application of the mixed-method sequential explanatory
design. Res Dev Med Educ. 2015; 4(1): 47-54. doi: 10.15171/rdme.2015.008
27. Beigzadeh A, Okhovati M, Mehrolhasani M H, Shokoohi M, Bazrafshan
A. Challenges of the Bachelor Program of Health Services Management: A
Qualitative Study. jha. 2014; 17(55): 29-42.