An observational study in Student and Faculty Perspectives About Examinations, sponsored by New Valley University. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-05.
Sponsored by New Valley University · Observational
Current practice and debate: Many medical schools use hybrid models that combine modular and final exams to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. Still, there is no consensus on the optimal structure. The debate centers on three issues: educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. Modular systems may support continuous learning but raise concerns about assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge, as students may learn topics in isolation rather than as an integrated whole. End-of-term exams, by contrast, risk encouraging short-term memorization even though they test integration more effectively.
Justification for the study: Given these competing advantages and drawbacks, the study aims to explore the perspectives of both students and faculty on the two approaches. Understanding how each stakeholder group perceives the effects on learning, stress, workload, and performance can fill a gap in the existing literature, which focuses mainly on learning behaviors rather than stakeholder views.
Expected contribution: The findings are intended to inform evidence-based decisions on assessment design in preclinical medical education. By clarifying the trade-offs between distributed and cumulative exams, the study seeks to help institutions optimize learning outcomes while keeping assessment workload and student stress manageable
How do end-of-term versus end-of-module examinations influence student learning, performance, and stakeholder perceptions in pre-clinical medical education? Background Assessment is a cornerstone of medical education, shaping students' learning approaches, knowledge retention, and competency development. In the preclinical stage, summative assessments are commonly delivered either as end-of-term (comprehensive, high-stakes examinations) or as end-of-module (frequent, distributed assessments). The research question underpinning this study is Existing literature highlights that assessment strategies significantly affect learning behaviors. Modular assessments, conducted at shorter intervals, are associated with enhanced knowledge retention through the "testing effect" and promote continuous engagement with course material. In contrast, end-of-term examinations tend to encourage more intensive, often surface-level revision strategies due to their cumulative nature (1). Evidence also suggests that frequent modular assessments may foster deeper learning and personal development, whereas fewer high-stakes exams may increase stress and reduce opportunities for formative feedback (2).
Currently, many medical schools adopt hybrid strategies combining modular and final assessments to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal structure, particularly in terms of educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. While modular systems may enhance continuous learning, concerns persist regarding assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge. Conversely, end-of-term exams may better evaluate integrative understanding but risk promoting short-term memorization.
Therefore, this study is justified by the need to explore both student and faculty perspectives on these contrasting approaches. Understanding these perceptions will help inform evidence-based assessment design and optimize learning outcomes in preclinical medical education.
New Valley University is the lead sponsor of 25 studies on the registry; 14 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
A structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness
To compare student and faculty satisfaction and perceived effectiveness between the vertical (end-of-term) examination system used in Year 1 and the horizontal (end-of-module) examination system used in Year 2 among undergraduate medical students
A structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness by anonymous self-administered online or paper-based survey
Time frame: 2-4 months
No study locations are listed for this record.
Start is estimated for Dec 2026; primary completion for Mar 2027, 3 months later.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
New Valley University