The rating of pre‐clerkship examination questions by postgraduate medical students: an assessment of quality and relevancy to medical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether postgraduate students are able to assess the quality of undergraduate medical examinations and to establish whether faculty can use their results to troubleshoot the curriculum in terms of its content and evaluation. SUBJECTS: First and second year family medicine postgraduate students. MATERIALS: A randomly generated sample of undergraduate medical examination questions. METHODS: Postgraduate students were given two undergraduate examinations which included questions with an item difficulty (ID) > 0.60. The students answered and then rated each question on a scale of 1-7. RESULTS: The percentage of postgraduate students answering each question correctly correlated significantly with the average perceived relevance (Examination 1: r=0.372; P < 0.05; Examination 2: r=0.458; P < 0.05). Questions plotted for average postgraduate/undergraduate performance ratio versus the average perceived relevance were significantly correlated (Examination 1: r=0.462; P < 0.01; Examination 2: r=0.458; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a method of validating question appropriateness prior to examination administration. The design has the potential to be used as a model for determining the relevancy of a medical curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".