Full Length Research Paper
Raghuveer Choudhary*, Dr Vinod Kumar Chawla, Kamla Choudhary, Sonika Choudhary and Urmila Choudhary
Department of Physiology, Dr S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
Scientific studies confirm that it is the evaluation system rather than educational objectives, curriculum or instructional techniques that have the most profound impact on students learning. The present study was done to find out the coverage of different sub-divisions of physiology in written examination and its comparison with the teaching hours devoted to the teaching of each topic. For the analyses of the written question papers, all the questions of the first M.B.B.S examination of Rajasthan University of Health Sciences from 2001 to 2006 were examined and analyzed for content validity. The results of this analysis were then compared with percentage frequency of teaching hours devoted to each topic. Highest percentage frequency of coverage was with cardiovascular system (15.40%) while lowest was for exercise physiology (1.26%). 45% coverage of all the segments was asked from CVS, blood and CNS including special senses. The percentage frequency of classes for these topics was analysed out of a total of 200 h of teaching. It was found to be highest for nervous system (18%) while lowest for environmental physiology and exercise physiology (2.5% each). In the present study, it was observed that there is some difficulty in setting of questions due to the absence of weight for different sub-divisions. Some sub-division of physiology remains uncovered in some question papers. Content validity is the first priority of any assessment. It is a measure of the degree to which the assessment contains a representative sample of material taught in the course and should cover important skills abilities. Increasing the sample of objectives and contents areas included in any given test will improve the validity of test and for further improvement in assessment system of physiology; content validity is needed to be established.
Key words: Content validity, physiology examinations.
|Adkoli BV (1995). Attributes of a good question paper. In: Sood R, Chief Editor. Assessment in medical educations trends and tools. New Delhi: K.L.Wig center for Medical education & Technology, p73-76.|
|Crowl TK, Kaminskys, Podell DM (1997). Educational Psychology: Windows on Teaching. Dabuque: Brown & Bench mark.|
|Davis MH (2001). Constructed response questions. In: Dent JA, Harden RM. A practical guide for teachers. Edinbergh: Churchill Livingstone, pp. 326-35.|
|Khanam ST (1998). Research Methodology basic concepts .2nd edition Dhaka, pp. 89|
|McAleer S (2001). Choosing assessment instruments. In: Dent JA, Harden RM Editor. A practical guide for Medical teachers. Endinbergh: Churchill Livingstone, pp. 303-13.|
|Miller GE (1973). Educational strategics for the health professions. In: Development of educational programmes for the health professionals. WHO Public Health, 52p.|
|Newble D, Cnnon R (1995). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges, a guide to improving teaching methods.3rd edition Landon: Kogan page limited,|
|APA||(2012). Content validity of first M.B.B.S physiology examinations and it’s comparison with teaching hours devoted for different sub-divisions of physiology. Journal of Physiology and Pathophysiology, 3(1), 8-11.|
|Chicago||Raghuveer Choudhary, Dr Vinod Kumar Chawla, Kamla Choudhary, Sonika Choudhary and Urmila Choudhary. "Content validity of first M.B.B.S physiology examinations and it’s comparison with teaching hours devoted for different sub-divisions of physiology." Journal of Physiology and Pathophysiology 3, no. 1 (2012): 8-11.|
|MLA||Raghuveer Choudhary, et al. "Content validity of first M.B.B.S physiology examinations and it’s comparison with teaching hours devoted for different sub-divisions of physiology." Journal of Physiology and Pathophysiology 3.1 (2012): 8-11.|