Comparison of answer-until-correct and full-credit assessments in a team-based learning course

To assess the impact of awarding partial credit to team assessments on team performance and on quality of team interactions using an answer-until-correct method compared to traditional methods of grading (multiple-choice, full-credit).

Subjects were students from 3 different offerings of an ambulatory care elective course, taught using team-based learning. The control group (full-credit) consisted of those enrolled in the course when traditional methods of assessment were used (2 course offerings). The intervention group consisted of those enrolled in the course when answer-until-correct method was used for team assessments (1 course offering). Study outcomes included student performance on individual and team readiness assurance tests (iRATs and tRATs), individual and team final examinations, and student assessment of quality of team interactions using the Team Performance Scale.

Eighty-four students enrolled in the courses were included in the analysis (full-credit, n=54; answer-until-correct, n=30). Students who used traditional methods of assessment performed better on iRATs (full-credit mean 88.7 (5.9), answer-until-correct mean 82.8 (10.7), p<0.001). Students who used answer-until-correct method of assessment performed better on the team final examination (full-credit mean 45.8 (1.5), answer-until-correct 47.8 (1.4), p<0.001). There was no significant difference in performance on tRATs and the individual final examination. Students who used the answer-until-correct method had higher quality of team interaction ratings (full-credit 97.1 (9.1), answer-until-correct 103.0 (7.8), p=0.004).

Answer-until-correct assessment method compared to traditional, full-credit methods resulted in significantly lower scores for iRATs, similar scores on tRATs and individual final examinations, improved scores on team final examinations, and improved perceptions of the quality of team interactions.