The effect of the attitude towards risk/ambiguity on examination grades: cross-sectional study in a Portuguese medical school

被引:2
作者
Leite-Mendes, Filipe [1 ]
Delgado, Luis [2 ,3 ]
Ferreira, Amelia [1 ]
Severo, Milton [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Porto, Fac Med, Rua Hernani Torres 247,8 DRT FRT, P-4200320 Porto, Portugal
[2] Univ Porto, Fac Med, Dept Pathol Basic & Clin Immunol, Porto, Portugal
[3] Univ Hosp Ctr Sao Joao, Immunoallergol Unit, Porto, Portugal
[4] Univ Porto, Inst Publ Hlth EPIUnit, Epidemiol Res Unit, Porto, Portugal
[5] Univ Porto, Sch Med & Biomed Sci, ICBAS, Porto, Portugal
关键词
Ambiguity aversion in medicine; Attitude towards risk; Formula scoring; Knowledge; Medical students; Multiple choice examination; Multiple choice questions; Negative marking; Number-right scoring; Personality; Reliability; Tolerance for ambiguity; Validity; RISK ATTITUDES; AMBIGUITY;
D O I
10.1007/s10459-023-10305-z
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Given the high prevalence of multiple-choice examinations with formula scoring in medical training, several studies have tried to identify other factors in addition to the degree of knowledge of students which influence their response patterns. This study aims to measure the effect of students' attitude towards risk and ambiguity on their number of correct, wrong, and blank answers. In October 2018, 233 3rd year medical students from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, in Porto, Portugal, completed a questionnaire which assessed the student's attitudes towards risk and ambiguity, and aversion to ambiguity in medicine. Simple and multiple regression models and the respective regression coefficients were used to measure the association between the students' attitudes, and their answers in two examinations that they had taken in June 2018. Having an intermediate level of ambiguity aversion in medicine (as opposed to a very high or low level) was associated with a significant increase in the number of correct answers and decrease in the number of blank answers in the first examination. In the second examination, high levels of ambiguity aversion in medicine were associated with a decrease in the number of wrong answers. Attitude towards risk, tolerance for ambiguity, and gender did not show significant association with the number of correct, wrong, and blank answers for either examination. Students' ambiguity aversion in medicine is correlated with their performance in multiple-choice examinations with negative marking. Therefore, it is suggested the planning and implementation of counselling sessions with medical students regarding the possible impact of ambiguity aversion on their performance in multiple-choice questions with negative marking.
引用
收藏
页码:1309 / 1321
页数:13
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY AMONG MEDICAL-STUDENTS - IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR SELECTION, TRAINING AND PRACTICE [J].
GELLER, G ;
FADEN, RR ;
LEVINE, DM .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1990, 31 (05) :619-624
[2]   Abandoning negative marking [J].
Goldik, Zeev .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2008, 25 (05) :349-351
[3]   Temporal changes in tolerance of uncertainty among medical students: insights from an exploratory study [J].
Han, Paul K. J. ;
Schupack, Daniel ;
Daggett, Susannah ;
Holt, Christina T. ;
Strout, Tania D. .
MEDICAL EDUCATION ONLINE, 2015, 20
[4]  
Han PKJ, 2011, MED DECIS MAKING, V31, P828, DOI [10.1177/0272989X10393976, 10.1177/0272989X11393976]
[5]   Aversion to Ambiguity Regarding Medical Tests and Treatments: Measurement, Prevalence, and Relationship to Sociodemographic Factors [J].
Han, Paul K. J. ;
Reeve, Bryce B. ;
Moser, Richard P. ;
Klein, William M. P. .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 2009, 14 (06) :556-572
[6]  
Mahjabeen W., 2018, ANN PIMS, V4, P1
[7]  
McG Harden R, 1976, Med Educ, V10, P27
[8]  
Muijtjens AMM, 1999, MED EDUC, V33, P267
[9]  
Ndu IK, 2016, J MED EDUC CURRIC DE, V3, DOI [10.4137/JMECDECDECD.S40705, 10.4137/JMECD.S40705]
[10]   How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence [J].
Nosic, Alen ;
Weber, Martin .
DECISION ANALYSIS, 2010, 7 (03) :282-301