# Computer Testing, Formative or Summative, and Proctoring: Does it Matter? Lessons Learned From the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine During the Corona Pandemic

## TL;DR

This study examines how switching to computer-based testing and remote proctoring during the pandemic affected student performance and test integrity in medical schools.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the viability of computer-based and remotely proctored exams in medical education during the pandemic.

## Key findings

- Student performance was similar in paper-based and computer-based tests.
- Remote proctoring was as effective as live supervision in preventing cheating.
- Formative testing generally improved student outcomes compared to summative testing.

## Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant changes in the administration of the Dutch Interuniversity Progress Test of Medicine, offering a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of various test formats. This study explores the impact of transitioning from paper-based to computer-based testing, the shift from summative to formative testing, and the effectiveness of remote proctoring compared to live supervision.

Data from over 10,000 participants across five medical schools were analyzed.

Results showed no significant difference in student performance between paper-based and computer-based tests. Additionally, remote proctoring proved to be as effective as live supervision in preventing dishonest behavior. Formative testing yielded slightly better results than summative testing in most schools, although the effect varied between institutions.

Overall, our study concludes that computer-based testing is a viable alternative to paper-based formats, and remote proctoring can effectively replace live invigilation, at least in our setting and under COVID-19–related circumstances.