DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20191093

A comparative evaluation of structured and unstructured forms of viva voce for internal assessment of undergraduate students in Pharmacology

Tejas M. Khakhkhar, Neelesh Khuteta, Gurudas Khilnani

Abstract


Background: The study was designed to identify value of structured viva (SV) as an assessment tool, to ascertain its correlation with unstructured viva (UV) and to find relationship between viva and theory examination results.

Methods: This prospective and observational study was conducted on a total of 135 students of the 2nd professional MBBS. All students faced two viva sessions (SV and UV), each of 10 marks on same topics in general pharmacology and autonomic nervous system. Time limit per student was 10 minutes. SV was conducted on pre-validated, standardized cards (n=40) with 5 questions in each card and 0.5 marks of each question. By draw of lots to be performed by students themselves, each student was given 4 cards. One week prior to the viva, the theory examination of 40 marks on same topics was conducted.

Results: The mean marks of all students in SV (3.46±1.44) were significantly lower (P <0.0001) than those of UV (4.61±2.02). There was significant less deviation of mean marks in all groups of SV (P <0.05). The mean percentage marks of SV (34.63±14.37%) had similarities with results of theory examination (34.67±10.49%) (P=0.9720), while the difference between mean percentage marks of UV (46.15±20.19%) and theory was statistically highly significant (P <0.0001).

Conclusions: SV increases objectivity and reduces subjectivity as compared to UV because of similar pattern of questions, difficulty levels and standardised scoring system. SV provides an opportunity to measure how well students can apply knowledge. Thus, SV can be used for formative and summative assessment.


Keywords


Assessment tool, Pharmacology, Structured viva, Viva voce

Full Text:

PDF

References


Mahajan AS, Shankar N, Tandon OP. The comparison of OSPE with conventional physiology practical assessment. J Int Assoc Med Sci Educ. 2004;14:54-7.

Jindal P, Khurana G. The opinion of post graduate students on objective structured clinical examination in Anaesthesiology: A preliminary report. Ind J Anaes. 2016;60(3):168.

Khilnani AK, Charan J, Thaddanee R, Pathak RR, Makwana S, Khilnani G. Structured oral examination in pharmacology for undergraduate medical students: Factors influencing its implementation. Ind J Pharmacol. 2015;47(5):546.

Joughin G. Dimensions of oral assessment. Assess Evaluation Higher Edu. 1998;23(4):367-78.

Singh T. Student assessment: Issues and dilemmas regarding objectivity. Natl Med J India. 2012;25(5):287-90.

Torke S, Abraham RR, Ramnarayan K, Asha K. The impact of viva-voce examination on students performance in theory component of the final summative examination in physiology. J Physiol Pathophysiol. 2010;1(1):10-2.

Bahannan SA. Reliability of Examiners' Evaluations of Oral Presentations in Fixed Prosthodontics. IOSR-JDMS. 2014;13(3):28-31.

Dhasmana DC, Bala S, Sharma R, Sharma T, Kohli S, Aggarwal N,et al. Introducing structured viva voce examination in medical undergraduate pharmacology: a pilot study. Ind J Pharmacol. 2016;48(1):52.

Gupta P, Dewan P, Singh T. Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) revisited. Ind Pediatrics. 2010;47(11):911-20.

Haque M, Yousuf R, Baker SA, Salam A. Assessment in undergraduate medical education: Bangladesh perspectives. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2013;12(4):357-63.

Memon MA, Joughin GR, Memon B. Oral assessment and postgraduate medical examinations: establishing conditions for validity, reliability and fairness. Adv Heal Sci Edu. 2010;15(2):277-89.

Cobourne MT. What’s wrong with the traditional viva as a method of assessment in orthodontic education?. J Orthodontics. 2010;37(2):128-33.

Garcia-Jardon ME, Blanco-Blanco EV, Bhat VG, Vasaikar SD, Kwizera EN, Stepien A. Correlation between different PBL assessment components and the final mark for MB ChB III at a rural South African university. Afri J Heal Professions Edu. 2009;1(1):12-4.

Malhotra SD, Shah KN, Patel VJ. Objective structured practical examination as a tool for the formative assessment of practical skills of undergraduate students in pharmacology. J Edu Heal Promotion. 2013;2.

Smith LJ, Price DA, Houston IB. Objective structured clinical examination compared with other forms of student assessment. Arch Dis Childhood. 1984;59(12):1173-6.

Rehman R, Syed S, Iqbal A, Rehan RR. Perception and performance of medical students in objective structured practical examination and viva voce. Pak J Physiol. 2012;8(2):33-6.

Shenwai MR, Patil KB. Introduction of structured oral examination as a novel assessment tool to first year medical students in physiology. J Clin Diagnostic Res: JCDR. 2013;7(11):2544.

Verma A, Mahajan N, Jasani K, Patel J. Evaluation and comparison of result: conventional viva vs structured viva. Glob Res Anal. 2013;2:188-9.

Waseem N, Iqbal K. Importance of structured viva as an assessment tool in anatomy. J Univ Med Dent Coll 2016;7(2):29-34.

Ghosh A, Mandal A, Das N, Tripathi SK, Biswas A, Bera T. Student’s performance in written and viva-voce components of final summative pharmacology examination in MBBS curriculum: a critical insight. Ind J Pharmacol. 2012;44(2):274.

Patel B, Kubavat A, Piparva K. Correlation of student's performance in theory and practical of final summative pharmacology examination in MBBS curriculum: A critical insight. National J Physiol Pharmacy Pharmacol. 2013;3(2):171.

Kshirsagar SV, Fulari SP. Structured oral examination-student’s perspective. Anatom Karnataka. 2011;5(2):28-31.

Puppalwar PV, Rawekar A, Chalak A, Dhok A, Khapre M. Introduction of objectively structured viva-voce in formative assessment of medical and dental undergraduates in biochemistry. J Res Med Edu Ethics. 2014;4(3):321-5.

Mudey DG, Damke S, Tankhiwale N, Mudey A. Assessment of perception for objectively structured viva voce amongst undergraduate medical students and teaching faculties in a medical college of central India. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4:2951-4.