Paper versus electronic feedback in high stakes assessment.

Tablet computers have emerged as increasingly useful tools in medical education, particularly for assessment. However, it is not fully established whether tablet computers influence the quality and/or quantity of feedback provided in high stakes assessments. It is also unclear how electronically-recorded feedback relates to student performance. Our primary aim was to determine whether differences existed in feedback depending on the tool used to record it. METHODS: We compared quantitative and qualitative feedback between paper-scoring sheets versus iPads™ across two consecutive years of a final year MBChB (UK medical degree) Objective Structured Clinical Examination. Quality of comments (using a validated five-point rating scale), number of examiner comments and number of words were compared across both methods of recording assessment performance using chi-squared analysis and independent t-test. We also explored relationships between student performance (checklist and global scoring) and feedback. RESULTS: Data from 190 students (2850 paper scored interactions) in 2015 and 193 (2895 iPad™ scored interactions) in 2016 were analysed. Overall, a greater number of comments were given with iPad™ compared to written (42% versus 20%; p < 0.001) but the quality of feedback did not differ significantly. For both written and electronic feedback, students with low global scores were more likely to receive comments (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of iPads™ in high stakes assessment increases the quantity of feedback compared to traditional paper scoring sheets. The quantity and quality of feedback for poorer performing candidates (by global score) were also better with iPad™ feedback.

Tablet computers in assessing performance in a high stakes exam: opinion matters.

Background Tablet computers have emerged as a tool to capture, process and store data in examinations, yet evidence relating to their acceptability and usefulness in assessment is limited. Methods We performed an observational study to explore opinions and attitudes relating to tablet computer use in recording performance in a final year objective structured clinical examination at a single UK medical school. Examiners completed a short questionnaire encompassing background, forced-choice and open questions. Forced choice questions were analysed using descriptive statistics and open questions by framework analysis. Results Ninety-two (97% response rate) examiners completed the questionnaire of whom 85% had previous use of tablet computers. Ninety per cent felt checklist mark allocation was 'very/quite easy', while approximately half considered recording 'free-type' comments was 'easy/very easy'. Greater overall efficiency of marking and resource savings were considered the main advantages of tablet computers, while concerns relating to technological failure and ability to record free type comments were raised. Discussion In a context where examiners were familiar with tablet computers, they were preferred to paper checklists, although concerns were raised. This study adds to the limited literature underpinning the use of electronic devices as acceptable tools in objective structured clinical examinations.

Endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration and its practical application.

Endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has emerged over the past decade as one of the most exciting and innovative developments in the field of respiratory medicine. This procedure allows sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes and masses in both malignant and benign disease and overcomes some of the disadvantages associated with mediastinoscopy and blind transbronchial needle aspiration. We describe the clinical use, indications for and limitations of EBUS-TBNA along with several illustrated clinical examples.

Research misconduct.

Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics.