Pre/post-testing in evaluation of students’ gain of content knowledge from a blood and lymph course
Abstract
Background: There is an increased interest in programme evaluation, especially the definition of
goals and the measurement of educational outcomes.
Objective: To evaluate the student gain of content knowledge in one of phase II modules (blood
and lymph) as an institutional self evaluation process.
Method: This descriptive study assessed the students’ gain of content knowledge of the blood and
lymph course via pre- and post-testing. A sample of 214 second-year pre-clinical medical students
comprising 114 males and 110 females of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Omdurman
Islamic University, Omdurman, Sudan participated in the study. Data were analysed using SPPS,
version 15. The t-test (unpaired) was used for the difference of means. Pearson’s correlation
coefficient was used and P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results: The mean post-test score (7.99/12, SD = 2.17) was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than
the mean pre-test score (4.64/12, SD = 1.69). The average normalized gain (gain score) is 0.83.
There is no statistically significant difference in the pre- and post-test scores between male and
female students (P-values: 0.838 and 0.328).
Conclusion: The curriculum content of the blood and lymph course is effective in increasing
students’ knowledge about the haemopoietic system. Gender difference of students or instructors
does not affect students’ gain. We believe that other institutions should consider the use of pre- and
post-tests as a useful direct method of programme evaluation.
References
2. Dobbie A, Rhodes M, Tysinger JW, Freeman J. Using a modified nominal group technique as a curriculum evaluation tool. Fam Med. 2004; 36(6):402-6.
3. Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Med Teach 2001; 23(2): 123-137.
4. Pilcher ES, Charles LT, Lancaster CJ. Development and assessment of a cultural competency curriculum. J Dent Educ 2008; 72(9): 1020-8.
5. Devitt P, Palmer E. Computers in medical education 1: evaluation of a problemorientated learning package. Aust N Z J Surg 1998; 68(4): 284-7.
6. Dunn K, Crow S J, Van Moorsel T G, et al. Mini-Medical School for Librarians": from needs assessment to educational outcomes. J Med Libr Assoc 2006; 94(2): 166-73.
7. Kolasa KM, Jobe AC, Miller MG, et al. Teaching medical students cancer risk reduction nutrition counseling using a multimedia program. Fam Med 1999; 31(3): 200-4.
8. Swagerty D Jr, Studenski S, Laird R, et al. A case-oriented web-based curriculum in geriatrics for third-year medical students. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48(11): 1507-12.
9. Botash AS, Galloway AE, Booth T, et al. Continuing medical education in child sexual abuse: cognitive gains but not expertise. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159(6): 561-6.
10. Carr SE, Carmody D. Outcomes of teaching medical students core skills for women's health: the pelvic examination educational program. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(5):1382-7.
11. Kromann CB, Jensen ML, Ringsted C. The effect of testing on skills learning. Med Educ 2009; 43(1): 21-7.
12. Sobhy SI, Shoeib FM, Zaki NH. Assessment and upgrading of Alexandria University nursing students' knowledge and attitudes about genetic counseling. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2001; 76(3-4): 205-22.
13. Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. 1998; 66 (1): 64-74.
14. Saleh K, Messner R, Axtell S, et al. Development and evaluation of an integrated musculoskeletal disease course for medical students. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Aug; 86-A(8):1653-8.
