Palavras-chave
Desempenho acadêmico
Faculdades de medicina
Como Citar
Copyright © | Todos os direitos reservados.
A revista detém os direitos autorais exclusivos de publicação deste artigo nos termos da lei 9610/98.
Reprodução parcial
É livre o uso de partes do texto, figuras e questionário do artigo, sendo obrigatória a citação dos autores e revista.
Reprodução total
É expressamente proibida, devendo ser autorizada pela revista.
Resumo
Objetivo: Comparar o desempenho de estudantes de medicina em testes com consulta compostos por questões abertas (TCCQA), descrevendo variáveis relacionadas ao planejamento, execução, tempo de prova, tipo de resposta e domínio cognitivo das questões. Métodos: Estudo observacional retrospectivo, baseado na comparação entre o desempenho dos estudantes nos TCCQA aplicados sem (2023.1) e com supervisão e restrição de acesso às fontes de informação (2024.1), em um curso de medicina de instituição privada brasileira. Foram consideradas como variáveis exploratórias: tempo disponível para realização dos testes, tipo de resposta e domínio cognitivo das questões segundo a Taxonomia de Bloom. A análise estatística foi realizada no SPSS 26.0 e Excel 365, adotando-se nível de significância de 5% (p ≤ 0,05). Utilizou-se o teste de Mann-Whitney para comparação entre os grupos. Resultados: Foram analisados 1.160 TCCQA-2023 e 1.146 TCCQA-2024. A maioria dos testes supervisionados apresentou médias de notas inferiores (p < 0,05), apesar do maior tempo de prova e da predominância de domínios cognitivos mais baixos. Predominaram respostas longas nos TCCQA supervisionados. Conclusão: Houve diferenças de desempenho entre os contextos avaliativos, indicando que as condições de aplicação influenciam a interpretação dos resultados e a confiabilidade do desempenho individual dos estudantes.
Referências
ABUZIED AIH, NABAG WO. Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ., 2023; 23(1): 531.
AHMED Y, et al. Evolving assessment in medical education: exploring the role of open-book examinations. J Adv Med Educ Prof., 2024; 12(4): 215-25.
ALGUACIL M, et al. Academic dishonesty and monitoring in online exams: a randomized field experiment. J Comput High Educ., 2024; 36: 835–51.
BEARMAN M, et al. Ensuring academic integrity and assessment security with redesigned online delivery. Melbourne: Deakin University; 2020. Disponível em: http://dteach.deakin.edu.au/2020/03/23/academic-integrity-online/. Acessado em: 6 de junho de 2026.
BLADT F, et al. Medical students' perception of changes in assessments implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Educ., 2022; 22(1): 844.
BULJAN I, et al. Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ., 2021; 21(1): 25.
CRUESS RL, et al. Amending Miller’s Pyramid to include professional identity formation. Acad Med., 2016; 91(2): 180–5.
DAVIES DJ, et al. Assessment of factual recall and higher-order cognitive domains in an open-book medical school examination. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract., 2022; 27(1):147-65.
DAWSON P, et al. Beyond open book versus closed book: a taxonomy of restrictions in online examinations. Assess Eval High Edu., 2024; 49(2): 262–74.
DENEEN C. Assessment considerations in moving from closed-book to open-book exams. Melbourne: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne; 2020 May. Disponível em: https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/3341944/closed-book-to-open-book-exam_final.pdf. Acessado em: 6 de junho de 2026.
DURNING SJ, et al. Comparing open-book and closed-book examinations: a systematic review. Acad Med., 2016; 91(4): 583-99.
ELDAKHAKHNY B, ELSAMANOUDY AZ. Discrimination power of short essay questions versus multiple choice questions as an assessment tool in clinical biochemistry. Cureus., 2023; 15(2): e35427.
ELSALEM L, et al. Remote E-exams during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of students' preferences and academic dishonesty in faculties of medical sciences. Ann Med Surg., 2021; 62: 326-33.
ELSAMANOUDY A, et al. Evaluation of modified essay questions (MEQs) as an assessment tool in third-year medical students’ modular summative assessment. BMC Med Educ., 2024; 24:1445.
ELSHAMA SS. How to use and apply assessment tools in medical education? Iberoam J Med., 2020; 2(4): 351-9.
ER HM, et al. Remote online open book examinations: through the lenses of faculty and students in health professions programmes. BMC Med Educ., 2023; 23(1): 397.
FERRAZ AP, BELHOT RV. Taxonomia de Bloom: revisão teórica e apresentação das adequações do instrumento para definição de objetivos instrucionais. Gest Prod., 2010; 17(2): 421-31.
GAMAGE KA, et al. Online delivery and assessment during COVID-19: safeguarding academic integrity. Educ Sci., 2020; 10(11): 301.
GARG M, GAEL A. A systematic literature review on online assessment security: Current challenges and integrity strategies. Comput Secur., 2022; 113: 102544.
GUANGUL FM, et al. Challenges of remote assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: a case study of Middle East College. Educ Assess Eval Acc., 2020; 32(4): 519-35.
HOLDEN OL, et al. Academic integrity in online assessment: a research review. Front Educ., 202; 6: 639814.
JERVIS CG, BROWN LR. The prospects of sitting ‘end of year’ open book exams in the light of COVID-19: a medical student’s perspective. Med Teach., 2020; 42(7): 830–31.
Mak-VAN DER VOSSEN MC, et al. A road map for attending to medical students' professionalism lapses. Acad Med., 2019; 94(4): 570-8.
MATHIESON G, et al. Could the future of medical school examinations be open-book: a medical student's perspective? Med Educ Online., 2020; 25(1): 1787308.
MEE J, et al. An experimental comparison of multiple-choice and short-answer questions on a high-stakes test for medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract., 2024; 29(3):783-801.
MILLER GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med.,1990 Sep; 65(9): S63-7.
MUKURUNGE E, et al. Assessment approaches in undergraduate health professions education: towards the development of feasible assessment approaches for low-resource settings. BMC Med Educ., 2024; 24(1): 318.
NEWTON, PM, ESSEX, K. How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. J Acad Ethics., 2024; 22:323–43.
NG CK. Evaluation of academic integrity of online open book assessments implemented in an undergraduate medical radiation science course during COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci., 2020; 51(4): 610-16.
PANÚNCIO-PINTO MP, TRONCON LEA. Avaliação do estudante: aspectos gerais. Medicina (Ribeirão Preto)., 2014; 47(3): 314-23.
PIENAAR L, et al. Health professions education and unprofessional behaviour in the global south: a scoping review of conceptions, theoretical frameworks, and prevalence. BMC Med Educ., 2025; 25(1): 1733.
RADEMAKERS J, et al. Progress testing with short answer questions. Med Teach., 2005; 27(7): 578-82.
SABRINA F, et al. Ensuring academic integrity in online assessments: a literature review and recommendations. Int J Inf Educ Technol., 2022; 12(1): 60-70.
SARKAR S, et al. Online open-book examination of undergraduate medical students: a pilot study of a novel assessment method used during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. J Laryngol Otol., 2021;135(4): 288-92.
SEFER CC, et al. Avaliação do desempenho de estudantes de Medicina em Neurologia utilizando metodologias ativas. REAS [Internet]. 2019[citado 14 mar 2026]; 11(9):e293.
SUSNJAK T, MCINTOSH TR. ChatGPT: the end of online exam integrity? Educ Sci., 2024; 14(6): 656.
TUAH NA, NAING L. Is online assessment in higher education institutions during COVID-19 pandemic reliable? Siriraj Med J., 2020; 73(1): 61–8.
VAZQUEZ JJ, et al. Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. J Behav Exp Econ., 2021;90: 101653.