Comparison of Two Educational Methods for Teaching European Paediatric Advanced Life Support to Adults: Formative Versus Summative Evaluation—A Pilot Investigation

Abstract

Abstract Background: This study compared formative assessment with traditional summative assessment during European Paediatric Advanced Life Support (EPALS) courses. With increasing emphasis on the effectiveness of medical teaching methods, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of these assessment approaches on perceived stress levels and overall satisfaction of healthcare professionals participating in the EPALS course. Materials and Methods: A pilot investigation study was carried out to compare two EPALS courses run simultaneously. The courses used two different assessment methods: one used a summative evaluation at the end of the course, while the other implemented summative assessment throughout. The study examined the stress levels perceived by participants during the different phases of training when using subjective measures. In addition, participants’ satisfaction with the course, assessment methods, and overall experience was assessed using Likert scale responses. Results: Participants undergoing formative assessment reported significantly lower stress levels during assessment periods than those in the summative evaluation group. Both groups of participants were satisfied with the course. However, the formative group preferred formative assessment, while the summative group was more neutral. The formative group strongly believed that formative assessment was more objective than a summative test ( P = 0.011) and that certification held the same value as after a summative test ( P = 0.046), whereas the summative group believed that a formative assessment was neither more nor less objective. Conclusion: This study sheds light on the potential benefits of formative assessment in reducing perceived stress during training and increasing the satisfaction of participants of EPALS courses.