The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing
File(s)s12909-023-04828-7.pdf (1.36 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background:
Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events.
Methods:
Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative
performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs.
Results:
Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r =0.63, p<0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r=0.57, p<0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r=0.45, p<0.001).
Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65-34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74-5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their
first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33-4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained38
poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance.
Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02-7.90).
Conclusion:
Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students’ learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes.
Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events.
Methods:
Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative
performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs.
Results:
Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r =0.63, p<0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r=0.57, p<0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r=0.45, p<0.001).
Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65-34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74-5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their
first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33-4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained38
poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance.
Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02-7.90).
Conclusion:
Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students’ learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes.
Date Issued
2023-11-15
Date Acceptance
2023-10-31
Citation
BMC Medical Education, 2023, 23
ISSN
1472-6920
Publisher
BMC
Journal / Book Title
BMC Medical Education
Volume
23
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
License URL
Identifier
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
866
Date Publish Online
2023-11-15