Document Type : Original Article


Department of Community Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India


BACKGROUND: Online self‑assessment tools have become an important asset among current
teaching, learning, and assessment methods, especially among medical students. Developments
in information technology and recent changes in methods of undergraduate learning, especially with
the current COVID‑19 pandemic situation, will provide an impetus among students to uptake this
assessment tool. The study is aimed at bringing out the perception of medical students in using an
online self‑assessment tool in Biochemistry on the topics “Liver Function Tests” and “Renal Function
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an observational study conducted among 150 1st year medical students employing an online self‑assessment tool in Biochemistry, and the perception
response toward the questionnaire was graded.
RESULTS: The participation was 100%, with the perception questionnaire having a good internal
validity (α = 0.847). The students’ response was maximum for questions 9 and 10, which favored
for provision of instantaneous feedback and application of the same tool for other topics. A positive
correlation was observed between questionnaires for perceived learning and perceived engagement
using the online self‑assessment tool (r ± 0.554, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Self‑assessment tools have an impact on the learning of students only when provided
in a suitable environment such as immediate feedback and nonranking mechanisms.


1. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M‑K, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C,
et al. Core principles of assessment in competency‑based medical
education. Med Teach. 2017 Jun 3;39 (6):609–16.
2. Medical Council of India‑Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education 2012. Ann SBV. 2013 Jun; 2 (1):1–22.
3. Klenowski V. Student Self-evaluation Processes in Studentcentred Teaching and Learning Contexts of Australia and
England. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1995 Aug; 2 (2):145–63.
4. Linn BS, Arostegui M, Zeppa R. Performance rating scale for peer
and self assessment1. Med Educ. 2009 Jan 29;9 (2):98–101.
5. Caldwell JE. Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research
and Best‑Practice Tips. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2007 Mar; 6 (1):9–20.
6. Khalil MK, Nelson LD, Kibble JD. The use of self‑learning modulesto facilitate learning of basic science concepts in an integrated
medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2010 Sep 2;3 (5):219–26.
7. Martin F, Wang C, Sadaf A. Student perception of helpfulness
of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence,
connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses.
Internet High Educ. 2018 Apr; 37:52–65.
8. Richardson JC, Swan K. Examining social presence in online
courses in relation to students perceived learning and satisfaction.
Online Learn. 2019 Mar 19;7 (1).
9. Peat M, Franklin S. Supporting student learning: the use of
computer–based formative assessment modules. Br J Educ
Technol. 2002 Nov; 33 (5):515–23.
10. Taras M. The Use of Tutor Feedback and Student Self‑assessment
in Summative Assessment Tasks: Towards transparency for
students and for tutors. Assess Eval High Educ. 2001 Dec;
26 (6):605–14.
11. Taras M. To Feedback or Not to Feedback in Student
Self‑assessment. Assess Eval High Educ. 2003 Oct; 28 (5):549–65.
12. Aschbacher PR. Performance Assessment: State Activity, Interest,
and Concerns. Appl Meas Educ. 1991 Oct; 4 (4):275–88.
13. Taras M. Assessment – summative and formative‑some theoritical
reflections. Br J Educ Stud. 2005 Dec; 53 (4):466–78.
14. Winne PH. Inherent details in self‑regulated learning. Educ
Psychol. 1995 Sep; 30 (4):173–87.
15. Challis D. Committing to quality learning through adaptive online
assessment. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005 Oct; 30 (5):519–27.
16. Ibabe I, Jauregizar J. Online self‑assessment with feedback and
metacognitive knowledge. High Educ. 2010 Feb; 59 (2):243–58.
17. Ruth Kanfer FHK. Goalsand self‑regulation: Application of theory
to work settings. JAI Press. 1991 Jan; 7:287–326.