INTEGRATED PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT (IPA) AT AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR MEDICAL COLLEGE MUZAFFARABAD
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: IPA is a modern method of examination where not only students knowledge is assessed but their other competency like performance, psychomotor skills, critical thinking and clinical relevance may also be judged and assessed. In any medical college where method of teaching is integrated modular based this type of exam replaces the old traditional viva exams that had many weakness and disadvantages. IPA is the multi-disciplinary exam where students are examined on different stations by multiple examiners doing different tasks, some are simple static stations where knows and know how Level I & II of Miller’s Pyramid is assessed while other stations may need critical thinking or clinical performance where shows how and does (Level III & IV) is examined and assessed.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the importance of IPA in block exams and to analyze the results of these exams.
METHODOLOGY: This was a cross sectional study done at Azad Jammu & Kashmir Medical College Muzaffarabad on the block one exams in 2015 of first and second year students. The results of these exams were tabulated and evaluated. Feedback taken from both students and faculty later analyzed for improvements.
RESULTS: In block one IPA exam of first year MBBS students, 9 out of 99 (14.56%) got excellent above 80% marks, while 37 (37.37%) got between 71 to 80% and 43 (43.43%) got between 61 to 70% marks whereas only 10 (10.10%) students were weak who got between 51 to 60% marks, no student in this exam was failed who scored less than 50% marks. In block one IPA exam of second year MBBS students, 15 out of 103 (9.09%) got excellent above 80% marks, while 40 (38.83%) got between 71 to 80% and 30 (29.12%) got between 61 to 70% marks whereas only 12 (11.65%) students were weak who got between 51 to 60% marks and only 6 (5.82%) were failed who scored less than 50% marks in IPA exam.
CONCLUSION: Almost all of our students agreed that IPA is a better exam than a traditional written or viva exam. They agreed that it is a fair and justified exam to evaluate student knowledge, performance and psychomotor skills. In addition our faculty members also took active part in preparing, conducting and evaluating the result and found that this exam is more systematic and scientific.
KEY WORDS: IPA (Integrated Practical Assessment, Block exams.
References
Rao RH. Prospective in medical education. A Blueprint for reforms of medical education in japan. Keio J Med 2006; 55:81-95.
Harden RM. The integration ladder: a trial for curricular planning& education. Med Educ 2000; 34:351-7.
Parsell GJ, Bligh J. The charging context of undergrad medical education. Postgrad Med J 1995; 71:397-403.
General Medical council; Tomorrow’s Doctors: Recommendation in undergraduate medical education,London. The council; 1993.
Pakistan Medical &Dental Council. Regulation for degree of Bachelor of Medicine& Bachelor of surgery (MBBS) Islamabad The council, 2009.
Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, BehrbohmFM, Rundquist T. Attitude among student & teacher on vertical integration between clinical medicine& basic sciences within a problem based undergrad medical Curriculum. Med Teach 2002; 24:286-8.
Woodman OL, Dodds AE, Frauman, Mosepele M. Teaching pharmacology to medical students in an integrated problem based curriculum: An Australian perspective. ActapharmacologicaSinrca 2004; 25(9):1195-203.
Ginzberg E. The reforms of medical education: an outsider reflection. Acad Med 1993; 68:518-9.
Dahle LO, Behrbohm FM, Rundquist T. Pros and Cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine& basic Sciences within a problem based integration medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linkoping Sweden. Med Teach 2002; 24:280-5.
Alan B, Bligh J, Browne J. Medical education for future: identify, power and location; chapter 14 problem based learning or patient based learning; springer 2011.p.210-11.
Hart I. Objective clinical examinations: In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teacher.Edinburgh London;Philadelphia ST Louis;2000.p.357-61.
