High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?

ABSTRACT

Phenomenon: Studies of high-stakes collaborative testing remain sparse, especially in medical education. We explored high-stakes collaborative testing in medical education, looking specifically at the experiences of students in established and newly formed teams. Approach: Third-year psychiatry students at 5 medical schools across 6 sites participated, with 4 participating as established team sites and 2 as comparison team sites. For the collaborative test, we used the National Board of Medical Examiners Psychiatry subject test, administering it via a 2-stage process. Students at all sites were randomly selected to participate in a focus group, with 8–10 students per site (N = 49). We also examined quantitative data for additional triangulation. Findings: Students described a range of heightened emotions around the collaborative test yet perceived it as valuable regardless if they were in established or newly formed teams. Students described learning about the subject matter, themselves, others, and interpersonal dynamics during collaborative testing. Triangulation of these results via quantitative data supported these themes. Insights: Despite student concerns, high-stakes collaborative tests may be both valuable and feasible. The data suggest that high-stakes tests (tests of learning or summative evaluation) could also become tests for learning or formative evaluation. The paucity of research into this methodology in medical education suggests more research is needed.

KEYWORDS:

• academic performance
• emotional intelligence
• team-based learning
• teamwork
• collaborative testing

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Medical Branch and at each of the other participating schools.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Acknowledgments

Dr. Borges is now at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MI, USA. We thank Lindsey Allison, Erina Rivarde, Kenisha Moore, Candice Russell, Melissa Jacob, and Shaira Morales for their tireless efforts in managing TBL materials with skill and grace. We also express gratitude for the kindness, generosity, and flexibility of Agata Butler, Dave Swanson, and Linette Ross at the National Board of Medical Examiners for allowing use of the subject tests with the student teams and assisting with the scoring and interpretation of National Board of Medical Examiners data.

Funding

This research was supported in part through a grant from the Association of American Medical College's Southern Group on Educational Affairs and the University of Texas Medical Branch Academy of Master Teachers.