Palabras clave
Rendimiento académico
Facultades de medicina
Cómo citar
Copyright © | Todos los derechos reservados.
La revista posee los derechos de autor exclusivos para la publicación de este artículo en los términos de la ley brasileña 9610/98.
Reproducción parcial
El uso de partes de los textos, figuras y cuestionario del artículo es libre, siendo obligatoria la citación de los autores y revista.
Reproducción total
Está expresamente prohibido y debe ser autorizado por la revista.
Resumen
Objetivo: Comparar el desempeño de estudiantes de medicina en pruebas con consulta compuestas por preguntas abiertas (PCPA), describiendo variables relacionadas con la planificación, la ejecución, el tiempo de examen, el tipo de respuesta y el dominio cognitivo de las preguntas. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo, basado en la comparación del desempeño de los estudiantes en las PCPA aplicadas sin supervisión (2023.1) y con supervisión y restricción de acceso a las fuentes información (2024.1), en un curso de medicina de una institución privada brasileña. Se consideraron como variables exploratorias: el tiempo disponible para realizar las pruebas, el tipo de respuesta y el dominio cognitivo de las preguntas según la Taxonomía de Bloom. El análisis estadístico se realizó utilizando SPSS 26.0 y Excel 365, adoptándose un nivel de significancia del 5% (p ≤ 0,05). Se utilizó la prueba de Mann-Whitney para comparar los grupos. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.160 PCPA-2023 y 1.146 PCPA-2024. La mayoría de las pruebas supervisadas presentó medias de calificaciones inferiores (p < 0,05), a pesar del mayor tiempo disponible para la prueba y del predominio de dominios cognitivos más bajos. Predominaron las respuestas largas en las PCPA supervisadas. Conclusión: Se observaron diferencias de desempeño entre los contextos evaluativos, lo que indica que las condiciones de aplicación influyen en la interpretación de los resultados y en la confiabilidad del desempeño individual de los estudiantes.
Referencias
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.