The relationship between academic assessment and psychological distress among medical students: a systematic review

Medical training has been well documented in the literature as a time of high stress and anxiety for many medical students. A systematic review by Dyrbye et al. [1] showed that psychological distress such as stress, anxiety, and burnout among United States and Canadian medical students was consistently higher than the age-matched general population. Factors such as large course workloads and a concern for academic performance have been identified as contributors to this distress [2].

Furthermore, studies have reported on a trend of increasing stress and anxiety for medical students during periods of academic assessment [3, 4]. Often the perceived difficulty of the assessment, and its importance to progression through training, plays a key role [5]. Problems in recalling information, difficulty in memorizing key points, poor study techniques and lack of confidence and time management skills among the students can be additional stressors [6]. Demographic variables such as gender have also been demonstrated to have an effect, with female medical students tending to experience a greater level of assessment stress and anxiety compared with male students [6, 7].

A further concern is that with increased levels of stress or anxiety, academic performance may be impaired [4]. The Yerkes-Dodson law suggests that increasing levels of anxiety or stress can lead to improved performance up to a certain level after which it can then become detrimental, affecting working memory and coping [8].

As there is an increasing emphasis for medical educators to take into account the health and well-being of medical students in the development of medical curricula, we sought to understand how methods of assessment impact on the psychological distress and subsequent performance of medical students with the aim of informing assessment practices.

In this report, we describe our systematic review of the relationship between academic assessment and psychological distress among medical students to address the following questions:

Due to heterogeneity between the studies, such as the focus on various methods of assessment and use of different instruments to measure stress or anxiety, it was not possible to collate the data for a meta-analysis. Therefore, the reviewers consolidated the studies into a qualitative report with appropriate critical review.

To ensure uniformity and clarity, the following definitions were chosen by the reviewers for the purpose of this review. Medical students were defined as students enrolled in tertiary programmes who will eventually qualify as medical doctors. Assessments were defined as specific events that test the knowledge or performance of a medical student.

A literature search of six electronic databases: Medline, Medline IN PROCESS, PubMed, EMBASE, Psych info and ERIC was completed. Key search terms used were in combinations of: examination, or exam, or assessment, or appraisal, or test, or viva voce, or education measurement; and medical student; and medical school or medical curriculum or medical programme; and anxiety or stress or distress or burnout or pressure or coping or concern or worry or apprehension or nervousness or fear or addictive behaviour or depression or psychological disturbance. The search was limited to articles published in English between January 1991 and May 2014. All original research articles, reviews, editorials, and essays were retrieved for examination and a bibliography management programme (ENDNOTE X3, Thomson Reuters, New York) was used to create a search library. The search yielded a total of 2,781 hits (after removal of duplicates). An additional 16 papers from a hand search of key journals and from reference lists were included.

The reviewers met to determine the review inclusion and exclusion criteria, and to select articles for critical appraisal and review. These criteria are listed below:

In August 2011, a total of 100 articles were identified by two independent reviewers [Author 2, Author 4] as potentially relevant studies after screening the titles and online abstracts of the initial 1,813. From the 100 articles identified, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select 57. These were obtained as full texts for examination. The selection of papers for this review was completed by October 2011 and a total of 11 studies were selected. Following a further literature search in May 2014, an additional 968 studies were identified (excluding duplicates). After screening titles and online abstracts, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify 24 full-text papers for review, and a total of 12 studies were selected (Fig. 1).

Each selected article was analyzed independently by at least two reviewers and data extracted using a critical appraisal framework (Fig. 2). To assess study quality, the reviewers considered a variety of factors that could contribute to risks of bias within each study including recruitment methods, outcomes assessment, and reporting of outcomes. The data extraction and review instrument also asked reviewers to draw conclusions about the validity and reliability of the evidence presented in each article. Any discrepancies in opinion between the reviewers were identified and final agreement was reached after face-to-face discussion.

This systematic review included 23 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria [6, 7, 9‐29].

A total of seven studies were set in the United States originating from different medical faculties [9‐15]. Five studies were from India, the next most common setting [16‐20]. Studies were conducted in dedicated medical programmes. The majority of studies did not provide details of those programmes.

The year level of participating medical students ranged from Year 1 to Year 5 (final year). One study included premedical students in addition to medical students as study participants [9].

Demographic information including the age and gender of participants was reported by 14 studies [6, 7, 10, 12, 15‐24]. A further six studies reported gender but no comment was made on the age of participants [11, 14, 25‐28]. Three studies did not report demographic variables [9, 29].

Assessment of baseline levels of participants’ perceived stress or anxiety was completed in nine studies [10, 17, 18, 21‐23, 25, 26, 29]. Seven studies assessed participants’ baseline levels of stress using physiological parameters such as blood pressure or heart rate [9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23].

There were a variety of subjective outcomes measured in the studies. Self-reported survey questionnaires were the most common form of evaluation created or adopted by investigators to evaluate the outcome measures. Investigators generally provided a brief description of the questionnaire. Six studies utilized Spielberger’s Test Attitude Inventory (TAI) [7, 12, 21, 23, 28, 29]. This Inventory is a self-reported psychometric scale used to measure individual differences in test anxiety [18]. Post-assessment interviews were a further subjective measure in one study [14].

Investigators also measured a range of objective physiological measures of stress or anxiety. For example, one study measured pulse, blood pressure and carried out an electrocardiogram (ECG) on participants at the time of a viva voce assessment [19]. Another study measured the auditory reaction time, eosinophil count and galvanic skin resistance prior to a viva voce assessment [20]. Three studies used salivary or blood biochemical markers as correlates for anxiety or stress levels which included cortisol, thyroid profiles, and MiRNA levels [10, 17, 21].

Studies addressed the effect of specific methods of assessment on participant stress and anxiety. Broyles et al. [14] evaluated whether an open-book setting for assessment reduces stress during a family medicine clerkship. During the study period, two sites used a closed-book setting for final written assessments in 2001. In 2002, the experimental site used an open-book setting for the final written assessment. Participants were interviewed immediately following this assessment. Answers were analyzed using qualitative methodologies and where indicated, percentages of responses were calculated within a theme. Key themes were generated to answer the study question. Over 80 % of the participants described feelings of being less stressed about being assessed in an open-book setting.

Reteguiz [12] utilized the TAI to assess levels of anxiety following a standardized patient assessment (SP) and a multiple choice question (MCQ) assessment during an internal medicine clerkship. Participants were categorized with low, moderate, or high levels of anxiety. Study findings suggested a moderate level of anxiety associated with both SP and MCQ assessment methods. However, there were no significant differences in levels of anxiety between the assessments.

Anxiety or stress associated with clinical assessments was investigated in seven studies [11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 24, 29]. The majority of study participants experienced increased levels of anxiety or stress associated with this type of assessment. This was demonstrated by elevated stress and anxiety scores reported from survey questionnaires, or an increase in physiological measures such as pulse rate and blood pressure at the time of the assessment.

A single study investigated the effect of grading systems on medical student psychological distress. Bloodgood et al. [15] compared the impact of a change from a graded (A, B, C, D) to a pass/fail grading system on medical student anxiety, depression, positive well-being, self-control, vitality, and general health. Two cohorts of medical students were surveyed, the last cohort under the five-interval grading system and the first cohort under the pass/fail grading system. The medical curriculum was reported as essentially identical between cohorts. Well-being was self-assessed by students with a web survey utilizing the Dupuy Schedule of General Well-Being. The pass/fail cohort exhibited a statistically significant increase in measures of well-being (P < 0.01) compared with the graded cohort.

The effect of an ‘honours’ system on levels of stress within the pass/fail class was also assessed in the same study. Within the pass/fail cohort the top 20 % of students were awarded ‘honours’. In a separate survey within this study, 70 % of students who consciously chose to seek honours felt that this resulted in greater stress. In comparison, 92 % of students who consciously chose to not pursue honours reported this decision resulted in lower stress.

Three studies addressed the influence of stress or anxiety on assessment performance. Reteguiz [12] found no evidence of an inverse relationship between anxiety level and performance as measured by the TAI, and SP and MCQ assessment scores suggesting performance was not impaired by anxiety. This finding conflicts with evidence reported by Frierson et al. [13] which indicated a relationship exists between anxiety and impaired performance on the National Board of Examiners examination. Similarly, Farooqi [7] reported an inverse relationship between test anxiety and academic performance. Yusoff [26] also reported a relationship between moderate to high stress levels, and higher risk of failing an examination.

Hettiarachchi and colleagues [25] demonstrated a relationship between quality of life (QoL), and assessment performance. They found students who performed better at an examination had significantly higher QoL scores at each domain tested (physical, psychological, social, and environmental QoL). In contrast, students with lower QoL scores tended to perform more poorly.

A significant gender effect on anxiety and performance was suggested by Pamphlet et al. [28] with lower anxiety being positively associated with higher performance of female medical students in an MCQ assessment. However, this finding was not consistent with a study by Reteguiz, which found no gender differences in relation to assessment anxiety and performance [12].

An interaction between gender, and assessment stress or anxiety was detected within many of the studies. Higher levels of assessment stress or anxiety were found among female medical students [6, 7, 11, 16, 24, 30]. However, many studies in this review also found no relationship between gender and assessment stress or anxiety [10, 22, 23, 26].

Hashmat et al. [24] observed several factors that contributed to assessment anxiety among final year medical students. Extensive course work load, the long duration of periods of assessment, lack of assessment preparation and a lack of exercise were reported to be the most important contributing factors. Many students also had little knowledge of assessment-taking and anxiety-reduction techniques. Yusoff [26] identified additional examination stressors, which included large amounts of content to be learnt for an examination, lack of time to review what had been previously learnt, self-expectation to perform well, and concern about getting poor marks.

Ping et al. [29] evaluated the pattern of anxiety symptoms during the course of a clinical assessment. Anticipatory anxiety was found to be the most prominent form of anxiety experienced with symptoms peaking 10 min before an assessment. These symptoms quickly subsided as the assessment proceeded. No resurgence of anxiety symptoms was reported in the presence of examiners. Students with high-test anxiety trait scores as measured by the TAI had significantly more anxiety symptoms during the assessment in comparison with students with lower scores.

This systematic review identified 23 studies that evaluated the relationship between academic assessment and psychological distress among medical students. Studies included a variety of assessment methods ranging from open or closed-book assessments, to MCQ, SP, OSCE and viva voce. A variety of methodologies including psychological and physiological measures were used to determine the impact of these forms of assessment on participant stress and anxiety. As the studies varied significantly, the degree of heterogeneity between these studies meant direct comparison was not possible. However, consistent among the studies was the finding that assessment invokes stress or anxiety, perhaps more so for female medical students. However, a gender effect was not consistent across all studies included in this review, and therefore its significance remains unclear.

A variety of factors can contribute to assessment stress and anxiety among medical students. Psychological factors are considered a leading cause of assessment anxiety [24]. Zeidner [35] suggested that students experiencing assessment anxiety are shown to be preoccupied with negative self-referential thoughts including doubts about academic competence and fear of failure. Also of significance is the contribution of course load, duration of the assessment period, and lack of knowledge of assessment and anxiety-reduction techniques [24]. These findings suggest that in addition to psychological factors, the learning environment may also contribute to assessment anxiety.

A relationship may exist between assessment stress or anxiety and assessment performance, although, this finding was not consistent across all studies included in this review. Therefore, the Yerkes-Dodson law could not be substantiated when applied in the context of medical education and assessment practices. The Yerkes-Dodson law has been cited in this review because it is frequently mentioned in the literature on personal stress [37]. However, it has limitations when used as a model as it does not allow for causes, perceptions, or coping mechanisms for stress or anxiety [37]. Furthermore, as it is not specific to stress or anxiety, but rather a theory of physiological arousal; more appropriate frameworks for this relationship could be stress specific theories such as the ‘Theory of Cognitive Appraisal’ by Lazarus and Folkman [38]. This theory can elaborate further on the relationship between psychological distress and assessment performance, by considering both the meaning and potential consequences of assessments for students, and the associated coping mechanisms. The stress of an assessment could relate to its perceived value, for example, whether an assessment is formative or summative, or its importance to progression through medical school. The potential consequences of this distress may be the development of adaptive or maladaptive coping mechanisms. Students may proactively cope by optimizing study techniques and time management, or by seeking social support and additional tutoring; or they may cope maladaptively by adopting avoidant behaviours, mentally disengaging, or by alcohol and drug abuse [39].

The limitations of this review are derived mainly from limited reporting of study procedures or methodologies, which limited the extent to which reviewers could draw firm conclusions about assessment stress or anxiety. These limitations also extend to risks of bias throughout the reviewed studies. Self-selection bias was likely present among most studies in this review. This was heightened by a lack of description of participant selection methods and low participant response rates in many of the studies. A gender bias may also exist as a result of self-selection. The significance of social desirability bias must also be considered a result of self-reporting within many of the reviewed studies. Social desirability bias affects the validity of a questionnaire and can confound relationships between variables by obscuring or producing artificial relationships among the variables [36]. The majority of the articles reviewed provided only a brief outline of the questionnaires used. Researchers using questionnaires should consider the effect of socially desirable responding on the validity of their research.

This review has implications for assessment practices for medical students. Faculty should consider the impact of assessments on student stress and anxiety, particularly as future clinical practice is inherently stressful [40, 41]. As students enter the workforce, the ability of students to cope may be eroded by their undergraduate training [42, 43]. A counter argument is that the coping skills and resilience required for the workforce may be developed through experiences such as assessment. Faculty could also play a role in preparing students to cope with the stress associated with assessment [44]. Interventions such as counselling services and stress management programmes are frequently reported in the literature as having a positive effect [24, 45].

An important gap in the literature is a lack of evidence that compares potential differences between high-stake or low-stake assessments, and formative or summative testing, on medical student stress and anxiety. Furthermore, the research currently available is limited by short follow-up durations and does not include information on the effect of ongoing exposure to assessment over the long-term.

There is evidence to suggest academic assessment is associated with psychological distress among medical students. However, differences in the types of measures used by researchers limited our ability to draw conclusions about which methods of assessment invoke greater distress. More rigorous study designs and the use of standardized measures are required. Future research should consider differences in students’ perceived significance of assessments, the psychological effects of constant exposure to assessment, and the role of assessment in preparing students for clinical practice.