Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 64513

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : CC01 - CC05 Full Version

Art of Paper Setting: The Blueprinting of MBBS Physiology Competency Based Curriculum


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/48372.15118
Raksha Jaipurkar, Swapnil Saikhedkar, Dharmendra Kumar, Gaurav Sikri, Sushil Sharma

1. Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 2. Clinical Tutor, Department of Physiology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 4. Professor, Department of Physiology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 5. Professor, Department of Pharmacology, AIIMS Mangalgiri, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Raksha Jaipurkar,
Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Armed Forces Medical College, Near Solapur Road, Wanwadi, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: rakshukarade@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Written examinations are integral component of students’ assessments at formative and summative level. There is no blueprint of question paper available for the new curriculum in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Physiology curriculum which may lead to variations in question paper setting. This lack of consistency in question papers affects the preparedness and performance of students.

Aim: To prepare the blueprint of MBBS Physiology Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) curriculum and to do content validity by comparing with Preliminary Examination (PE) and University Examination (UE).

Materials and Methods: This was a descriptive study conducted over a period of six months from July 2020 till December 2020. The study was conducted in Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. There are 15 topics and 140 outcomes for Physiology MBBS course as per new CBME curriculum is divided into paper I and II according to Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) syllabus. The main topics in each paper were further subdivided into subtopics for preparing learning objectives. Marks were allotted to each system taking into consideration optimum marks 97 for subjective with included options and 20 marks Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs). The papers of UE and PE conducted with new format were analysed for content validity.

Results: The blueprint of paper I (subjective) shows marks allotted for General Physiology 12, Haematology 13, Respiratory System (RS) 15, Cardiovascular (CVS) 17, Exercise 05, Renal system 15, Gastrointestinal System (GIT) 12, Lifestyle Aging and Meditation 03 and Attitude, Ethics and Communication. (AETCOM) 05 marks. The blueprint of paper II (subjective) shows marks for the Nerve-Muscle 16, Central Nervous System (CNS) 25, Special senses 14, endocrine system are 18, reproductive system 15, and temperature 09. MCQs were also allotted proportionate marks for each topic. Content analysis of papers showed exercise Physiology and body temperature regulation were not assessed in UE.

Conclusion: There was disproportionate representation of topics in formative and summative examinations in absence of blueprint. The blueprint should be an integral part of assessments.

Keywords

Assessment, Competency based medical education curriculum, Syllabus

A new CBME curriculum was implemented by the Board of Governors for MBBS course from 2019 onwards. The Medical Council of India rolled out subject wise competencies with thrust on horizontal and vertical integration (1). A very important component of curriculum is imparting correct education to students. Assessment is a systematic way of obtaining information about learning by students. ‘Assessment drives learning’, a statement defines the role of assessment in any form of education (2). The assessments in CBME are competency based (3). Every evaluation should be valid which implies that candidates achieving the minimum performance level have achieved the level of competence set out in the learning objectives. As students learn from what is being asked in the examinations, it is important to ask the valid questions (4),(5). For high quality assessment it is better to align with learning outcomes and compare with common testing modalities (6).

Students often point out in their feedback after theory examinations on inappropriate framing of the question papers with comments such as ‘it was very lengthy and time was not adequate,’ ‘it has not covered the whole syllabus’, and ‘it has missed the important topics’, etc., (7). Constructing a quality assessment is a challenging task (8). In the traditional assessment, question papers are set by one teacher/examiner and practical examinations are conducted by some other teacher without any alignment to objectives. For a written examination to be valid, it should match the contents of the syllabus and should give proportional weightage to contents. The blueprint of the syllabus can improve validity of examinations. Blueprint is a matrix that relates the assessment item to its objective and defines the number of items in each of the assessed domains according to its weight in the curriculum and is the appropriate tool for measurement (9). It is essential that a periodic evaluation of the question papers is done for content validity for the criteria being fulfilled. The content validity of evaluation with its congruence with learning objectives and learning experience can be facilitated by using blueprint (10).

Several methods to construct a blueprint are described across various reviews of literature and each discipline choose their appropriate method based on design of the curriculum implemented by their governing Medical council and health University. The first step in blueprinting is to define and tabulate the curricular content (11). After this tabulation, each curricular content could be addressed to learning objectives or cognitive skills. The two-dimensional matrix will be developed in which the contents represent one dimension and the learning objective or weightages allotted represent the other dimension (12).

There is no blueprint of question paper available for the new curriculum in MBBS Physiology curriculum which may lead to variations in question paper setting every year (13). This lack of consistency in question papers affects the preparedness and performance of both average and diligent students. Every mark obtained or lost is crucial for both categories of students. With this background, this study was formulated to prepare the blueprint of the MBBS Physiology as per new CBME curriculum and content validity with the formative and summative assessments.

Material and Methods

This was a descriptive study conducted over a period of six months from July 2020 till December 2020 at a Medical Institute in Western Maharashtra with 150 MBBS seats every year. The study was conducted in Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. There are 15 topics and 140 outcomes for Physiology MBBS course as per new CBME curriculum. The main topics in each paper were further subdivided into subtopics. The entire Physiology curriculum is divided into paper I and II according to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) syllabus. A total of five faculty members prepared learning objectives and categorised them in domains of learning levels by consensus. Specific learning objectives were prepared according to clinical importance of competency to be achieved and marks were distributed according to proportional weightage. These subtopics were then allotted weightage according to impact and frequency. The impact and frequency are weighted in the scale of 1-3 as (Table/Fig 1). The weightage of topic is calculated as:

Weightage score=Impact×Frequency

Subsequently, a two-dimension table of syllabus content assessment tools and the weightages allotted to them was prepared.

Decide the Impact of Each Content Area and Allot an ‘Impact Score’ (I) to each subtopic

The Impact score (I) range was from 1 to 3. Impact score 1 was given for topic with less public health importance and having “nice to know” content areas for students. Impact score 2 was given for topic with moderate public health importance and “desirable to know” content area and impact score 3 for topic with high public health importance and “must know” content areas for students (14).

The frequency of asking questions on that content areas and give ‘Frequency Score’ (F) to each subtopic

Frequency score ranges from 1 to 3. Frequency score 1 means less frequently asked question, frequency score 2 means moderate frequency of asking questions and frequency score 3 means high frequency of asking questions.

Decide Weightage coefficient of the Each Content Area (W): Following steps were conducted for deciding weightage to each content area.

a. Calculate I × F: Impact of topic × Frequency of asking questions from each topic
b. Calculate total summation of all I × F and this will be labelled as “T”.
c. Weightage coefficient (W) will be calculated as I × F/T
d. Multiply the Weightage coefficient (W) by total no. of items for subjective paper, if options are included i.e., 23. And “Calculate adjusted weightage of each content areas as per total marks of subjective questions, if options are included i.e., 97.

The cumulative impact and frequency were calculated as the average of subtopics for each system. Then Weightage coefficient was calculated as:

Weightage of a Topic (in %)=Weightage of topic/Total weightage of topic×100.

Then marks were allotted to each system taking into consideration optimum marks 97 for Subjective and 20 Blueprint Marks MCQs. Total number of items in each paper were 43 (23 Subjectives+20 MCQs).

Skeleton of the Assessment Tool

As per the norms of MUHS guidelines, total allotted marks for Physiology theory is 200 marks. Thus, each paper is of 100 marks (as shown in (Table/Fig 2)). Each paper will have following marks as per section: Total marks for each paper: 100 (97+20=117 including marks of option questions).

Duration of each paper: three Hours

Section A: MCQ: 30 minutes

Section B: 2 hours and 30 minutes

Section “B”

1) Brief Answer Questions (BAQ) (any ten out of eleven) 10×2=20 marks
2) Short Answer Questions (SAQ) (any eight out of nine) 8×5=40 marks
3) Long Answer Questions (LAQ) (any two out of three) 2×10=20 marks

Theory systems to be included were

Paper I

General Physiology, Haematology, Respiratory Physiology, CVS Physiology, Exercise, Renal Physiology, Alimentary system, Lifestyle Aging and Meditation, AETCOM 1.2,1.3.

Paper II

Endocrine Physiology, Reproductive System, CNS, Special senses, Temperature Regulation, Nerve muscle physiology.

Each paper had 23 items of 97 marks for subjective questions out of which student will have to attempt for 80 marks and 20 MCQ of 20 marks.

Content validity: The UE question papers of winter examination 2020 as summative assessment and PE conducted as formative assessment in department with new format were analysed for content validity for number of marks allotted to each system and compared with a prepared blueprint with accepted variation of 10%. Comparison of MCQs of PE was done but MCQ paper of 20 marks of UE MCQ question was not available hence content validity couldn’t be done.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analysed on Microsoft excel.

Results

There were a total 75 Competencies or outcomes in paper I and 65 Competencies or outcomes in paper II. The outcomes were divided by Learning objectives by faculty members and allotted impact and frequencies to calculate cumulative weightage and marks. The blueprint of paper I shows marks allotted for General Physiology 12, Haematology 13, RS 15, CVS 17, Exercise 05, Renal system 15. GIT 12, Lifestyle Aging and Meditation 03 and AETCOM 05 marks as shown in (Table/Fig 3). The blueprint of paper II shows marks allotted for Nerve Muscle 16, CNS 25, Special senses 14, endocrine system 18, reproductive system 15 and temperature 09 marks as shown in (Table/Fig 4). The MCQs paper carried 20 in paper I and II. The MCQs were also allotted proportionate marks for each topic. When compared between paper I and II, paper I contains 09 systems and paper II contains 06 systems because of which systems of paper I have less marks allotment on systems as compared to paper II. The blueprint prepared was complete for content validity.

On the content validity of paper I, it was observed that blueprint marks of General Physiology are 12, while PE included 10 marks question while UE included 14 marks question. There was no question asked on Exercise Physiology in the UE. In assessment of GIT blue printed marks are 12, PE included questions of 09 marks while UE asked questions on 14 marks. Lifestyle and meditation topics were allotted blueprint marks of 03 while UE asked questions on 05 marks. The questions on AETCOM were 05 marks in blueprint, PE as well as UE as mandated by University (Table/Fig 5), (Table/Fig 6). The MCQs marks for paper I were almost similar for all systems in PE exam as blueprint marks except RS and CVS.

In paper II, questions from Nerve Muscle were given 16 marks, PE included 09 marks while UE included 12 marks. The blueprint marks of CNS are 25, while PE included 31 marks and UE included 29 marks, Endocrine system blueprint marks are 18, while UE and PE included 19 marks which was near close representation, the reproductive system blueprint marks were 15, while PE included 24 marks and UE included 16 marks. The body temperature regulation included nine blueprint marks while PE included 05 marks and UE did not include any questions (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8). The MCQs marks for paper II were almost similar in PE exam as blueprint marks.

Discussion

Blueprint is a map for an assessment which contains important aspects of the curriculum and educational domains are covered by assessment (15). The term “blueprint” is derived from the field of architecture which means “detailed plan of action” (16). The blueprint is a guide for the faculty who sets the question paper, knows which question test which objective, and marks allotted to it. The present study was conducted to provide the quality of the questions prepared based on the topics they covered and the proportionality of the marks allotted to each of them.

The weightage of marks given to each content area with impact on public health importance and frequency of asking the question in accordance with the subjective consensus of the faculty of Physiology department. A study by Patel T et al., prepared a blueprint in Pharmacology with learning objectives identified and using a proportional weighting system based on clinical importance (17). After thorough brainstorming, the blueprint of the new MBBS Physiology curriculum was prepared for theory paper I and II. There were 75 outcomes for 09 topics in paper I and 65 outcomes for 06 topics in paper II. As there were a greater number of topics and outcomes in paper I, each topic was allotted less marks as compared to paper II. Paper I included blueprint marks for Lifestyle, meditation, Aging and Exercise Physiology as three and five respectively. As these topics are part of the syllabus and included in the blueprint as well, these topics won’t be missed while preparing question papers. Maximum marks were allotted to the CNS i.e., 25 in paper II.

The content analysis blueprint of the paper was conducted with PE exam conducted in department as well as UE for 150 MBBS first year students as formative and summative examination respectively. Content analysis of the paper I showed there was wide variation in Blueprint marks of General Physiology and GIT and marks in PE and UE. Less marks were allotted in PE and more questions were asked in UE as compared to blueprint marks for General Physiology and GIT. There was no question asked on Exercise Physiology in UE and no question asked on lifestyle and meditation in PE. This shows some topics were completely missed in assessment and there is mismatch between PE and UE marks weightages. A study by Gill JS and Sen S also showed that there was overrepresentation and underrepresentation of many topics across all the last 5-year University papers in the subject of microbiology in absence of blueprint (18). A study by Bhandare NN and Bhandare PN also showed all subdivisions of Pharmacology were not covered in theory assessments (5).

Content analysis of paper II shows blueprint marks of nerve muscle were 16 while PE were nine marks and UE were 12. This was a wide variation in PE and UE marks of Nerve muscle topic. The CNS marks were 25 while PE exam contained questions on 31 marks and UE exam contained questions on 29 marks that means both exams over assessed CNS. The Reproductive system blueprint marks were 15 while in PE 24 and UE 16. The body temperature blueprint marks were 09, PE were 05 while UE did not include questions on body temperature regulation. The MCQs marks were similar in PE exam as blueprint marks. The content analysis showed that there is wide variation in blueprint marks and marks in PE as well as UE for some topics for paper II. Some topics were completely missed in UE. These formative and summative examinations were conducted without use of blueprint and we found wide variation in marks. After creating a reliable blueprint, content validity of the blueprint should also be done when the blueprint is used to guide course design and evaluation (11). Hence, blueprint should be an integral part of assessment and it should be available to teachers as well as learners to increase fairness of the evaluation process (19).

Assessment is an integral part of the curriculum. It is very difficult to develop valid and reliable assessment of competence set out in learning objectives by the University. The initial investment of time and effort involved in making a blueprint can produce rich dividends over the long run. A study by Patil SY et al., concluded that a well-constructed and reliable blueprint is a valuable educational tool to align objectives with assessment that can include all aspects of assessment and helps in distribution of appropriate weightage and questions across the topics- benefiting both teacher and learners (14). Our blueprint of syllabus can help in setting question papers at Institute as well as University level.

Limitation(s)

The limitation of the study was that we couldn’t do content validity for MCQ question paper of UE.

Conclusion

Blueprints of the course curriculum need not be obligatory, and the paper setter should have freedom while setting the paper. Availability of blueprints make it easier for students to prepare for assessments as well. We have prepared a theory examination blueprint which is a realistic and objective measure of the relative importance of topics. The results of our content analysis showed that assessments were not matching at formative and summative assessments with blueprint marks. This blueprint will provide validity and reliability to the assessment process and should be an integral part of assessment. The blueprint prepared by us is as per the syllabus divided into two papers as per MUHS University guidelines. This blueprint may not be useful at other Universities but may guide them in setting up paper.

References

1.
Competency-based undergraduate curriculum for Indian Medical Graduate. 2018;01-04.
2.
Wormald BW, Schoeman S, Somasunderam A, Penn M. Assessment drives learning: an unavoidable truth? Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):199-204. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Davis MH, Harden RM. Competency-based assessment: Making it a reality. Med Teach. 2003;25(6):565-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):387-96. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Bhandare NN, Bhandare PN. Descriptive analysis of undergraduate Pharmacology question papers at Goa Medical college as regards to their content areas. 2019;01-02.
6.
Kibble JD. Best practices in summative assessment. Advances in physiology education. United States; 2017. Pp. 110-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Gujarathi AP, Dhakne-Palwe S, Patil RN, Borade-gedam P, Mahesh S. Preparation of Blue Prints for Formative Theory Assessment of Undergraduate Medical Students in Community Medicine. 2015;2:100-03. [crossref]
8.
Moni RW, Beswick E, Moni KB. Using student feedback to construct an assessment rubric for a concept map in physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29(4):197-203. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Amin Z, Chong YS, Khoo HE. Practical guide to medical student assessment. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific; 2006. [crossref]
10.
Bridge PD, Musial J, Frank R, Roe T, Sawilowsky S. Measurement practices: Methods for developing content-valid student examinations. Med Teach. 2003;25(4):414-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Coderre S, Woloschuk W, McLaughlin K. Twelve tips for blueprinting. Med Teach. 2009;31(4):322-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
D’Eon M. A blueprint for interprofessional learning. Med Teach. 2004;26(7):604-09. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
MUHS Curriculla Syllabus -1 Year; Human Physiology. :32-53.
14.
Patil SY, Gosavi M, Bannur HB, Ratnakar A. Blueprinting in assessment: A tool to increase the validity of undergraduate written examinations in pathology. Int J Appl basic Med Res. 2015;5(1):76-79. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Adkoli B. Attributes of a good question paper. In: Sood R, editor Assessment in Medical Education: Trends and Tools New Delhi: KL Wig Center for Medical Education and Technology, AIIMS. 1995.
16.
Adkoli B, Deepak KK, Anshu ST. Blueprinting in assessment. In: Principles of Assessment in Medical Education New Delhi: Jaypee Publishers. 2012. Pp. 205-13. [crossref]
17.
Patel T, Saurabh MK, Patel P. Perceptions of the use of blueprinting in a formative theory assessment in pharmacology education. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2016;16(4):e475-81. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Gill JS, Sen S. Blueprinting of summative theory assessment of undergraduate medical students in microbiology. Med J Armed Forces India. 2020;76(2):207-12. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
McLaughlin K, Lemaire J, Coderre S. Creating a reliable and valid blueprint for the internal medicine clerkship evaluation. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):544-47. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/48372.15118

Date of Submission: Jan 03, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Mar 06, 2021
Date of Acceptance: May 06, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 04, 2021
• Manual Googling: Apr 19, 2021
• iThenticate Software: May 28, 2021 (16%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com