Rodríguez VA, Rodríguez JRR, Chávez ML, Uribe-Uribe NO, Peñavera HJR, Soriano RJ, Ramírez MP, Vicuña GRM, Decanini AH, Platt GJ, Franco TA, Gurrola MT

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 333-338
PDF size: 106.23 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The examination carried out by the COMMAP for the certification process assessed pathologist formed in dissimilar institutions. In 2007 COMMAP’s governing body in turn, decided to digitize it. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the conversion to virtual slides in the microscopy section, compared with the traditional have had an impact on the scores of the candidates. Method: The slides were scanned with high resolution. The virtual microscope is a standard computer screen where there is a program (Aperio Scope Image Viewer) that can display the scanned slides. The results of the microscopy section of the past nine years were compared; two groups were formed: 1) those without digitized examination, and 2) with it. The results were compared by Student t-test and Mann-Whitney. Results: Of a 461 results 240 belonged to the first group and 221 to the second one. On a scale of 1-10, the average scores were 6.6 and 6.8, respectively (p › 0.6 and › 0.5). The minimum and maximum scores were also similar in each group. Conclusions: According to the results, the digitized exam in the COMMAP’s certification process shows no difference between the digitized and the conventional versions.

REFERENCES

1. Tauber AI. The two faces of medical education: Flexner and Osler revisited. JR Soc Med. 1992;85:598-602.

2. Hasbrouck LM. Minorities in medicine: the Flexner report. JAMA. 1996;275:1547-8.

3. Fernández DJ. El Consejo Mexicano de Médicos Anatomopatólogos AC. Su inicio, su evolución y su estado actual. En: Pérez TR. La patología en México. El Colegio Nacional; p. 87-104.

4. Green BF, Bock RD, Humphreys LG, Linn RL, Reckase MD. Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptative testing. J Educ Measurement. 1984;21:347-60.

5. Wang S, Jiao H, Young MJ, Brooka T, Olson J. Comparability of computer based and paper pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments. A meta analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurements. 2008;68:15-24.

6. Ward TJ, Hooper SR, Hannafin KM. The effect of computerized tests on the performance and attitudes of college students. J Educational Computing Research. 1989;5:327-33.

7. Harris T, Leaven T, Heidger P, Kreiter C, Duncan J, Dick F. Comparison of a virtual microscope laboratory to a regular microscope laboratory for teching histology. The Anatomical Record (New Anat). 2001;265:10-4.

8. Kayser K, Radziszowski D, Bzdyl P, Sommer R, Kayser G. Digitized pathology: theory and experiences in automated tissue-based virtual diagnosis. Romanian J Morphol Embryol. 2006;47:21-8.

9. Lee G, Weerakoon P. The role of computer-aided assessment in health professional education: a comparison of student performance in computerbased and paper-and-pen multiple-choice tests. Med Teach. 2001;23:152-7.

10. Vrabel M. Computerized versus paper-and-pencil testing methods for a nursing certification examination: a review of the literature. Comput Inform Nurs. 2004;22:94-8.