ResultsĪ total of 1385 studies were identified. Data analysis was done by the OpenMeta Analyst open-source app, version Windows 10. PubMed, Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) website reviews, Google Scholars, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for any article addressing the research questions from inception to December 2022. This systematic review was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The research aims to investigate the studies to reach an overall decision regarding the quality of structured viva as an assessment tool according to the agreed standards in medical education in terms of validity, reliability, and acceptability. In order to overcome these disadvantages, structured viva was invented and is claimed to be highly valid, reliable, and acceptable, but this was not confirmed by an overall systematic review or meta-analysis of the studies. While traditional viva has many disadvantages, including subjectivity, low validity, and low reliability, it is advantageous for assessing knowledge, clinical reasoning, and self-confidence, which cannot be assessed by written tests. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.The viva, or traditional oral examination, is a process where the examiners ask questions and the candidate answers them. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research.
Psychological Testing in the Service of Disability Determination. doi:10.1037/a0026975Ĭommittee on Psychological Testing, Including Validity Testing, for Social Security Administration Disability Determinations Board on the Health of Select Populations Institute of Medicine. Defining and distinguishing validity: Interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use. Standards for talking and thinking about validity.
0 kommentar(er)
