Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Teaching medical undergraduates Skills for Eye Examination: Is Flipped Classroom with Mental Rehearsal as Effective as Face-to-Face Teaching? Cover

Teaching medical undergraduates Skills for Eye Examination: Is Flipped Classroom with Mental Rehearsal as Effective as Face-to-Face Teaching?

Open Access
|Aug 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

The educational contents and teaching methods are standardised using a teaching script.

Table 1

Table summarizing the teaching materials and assessment instruments used during the study.

ITEMDESCRIPTION
Instructional Video10-minute video with step-by-step explanation of the eye examination skill of interest, focusing on key checkpoints and pitfalls. Three in total, covering all three skills of interest.
Mental Rehearsal (MR) Audio10-minute expert narrative of all procedural steps involved in the eye examination skill of interest, emphasizing landmarks, decision points, and errors to avoid. Three in total, covering all three skills of interest.
Video Modelling Examples (VME)20-minute video illustrating the problem-solving and diagnostic application of the eye examination skill of interest. Three in total, covering all three skills of interest.
Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Test50 item test delivered over 1.5hr. Questions assessed knowledge application, diseases diagnosis, and clinical reasoning. Two sets of questions in total, delivered pre- and post-teaching.
End-of-Rotation Test6 short answer questions delivered over 1hr. Questions were vignette-based, assessing clinical reasoning and problem solving using authentic case examples.
Micro-Clinical Evaluation eXerciseSingle workplace assessment over 10 minutes. Participants examined real patients and were assessed based on accuracy, speed, and time-sharing abilities.
Figure 2

Assessment rubric for micro-clinical evaluation exercise.

Table 2

Baseline comparison of the gender distribution, Pre-test Multiple Choice Question Total Scores and Section-Scores (pupils, visual field, and extra-ocular movement examinations) between both experimental groups.

SCOPE GROUP (N = 95)F2FT GROUP (N = 51)P-VALUES
GenderFisher Exact test
Male44 (46.3%)23 (45.1%)1
Female51 (53.7%)28 (54.9%)
Pre-test MCQ Test Scores [Mean (Standard Deviation)]Student’s t-test
Total22.31 (5.53)22.24 (5.74).943
Pupillary Examination8.16 (2.63)7.76 (2.38).361
Visual Field Examination8.26 (2.29)8.00 (2.34).515
Extra-Ocular Motility Examination5.88 (2.31)6.47 (2.56).176
Table 3

Pre- and post-test MCQ total scores within the SCOPE group. *Student’s t-test p-value. ^ANCOVA test statistic and p-value.

KTPH (N = 51)NUH (N = 44)STATISTICAL TEST OUTCOMES
Pre-test MCQ Test Total Scores [Mean (Standard Deviation)]23.22 (5.36)21.25 (5.6).085*F(1, 143) = 8.47, p = .004^
Post-test MCQ Test Total Scores [Mean (Standard Deviation)]37.31 (5.83)32.14 (4.26)< .001*
Table 4

Comparison of post-test MCQ mean scores between F2FT and SCOPE.

F2FT GROUP (N = 51)SCOPE GROUP (N = 95)
POST-TEST MCQ TEST TOTAL SCORES [MEAN (STANDARD DEVIATION)]STUDENT’S T-TEST p-VALUE
Total31.75 (5.24)34.92 (5.75).001
Pupillary Examination10.06 (2.47)11.01 (2.26).025
Visual Field Examination12.02 (1.66)13.08 (2.31).002
Extra-Ocular Motility Examination9.67 (2.73)10.82 (2.71).016
Figure 3

Comparison of the Estimated Marginal Means of the MCQ Test Total Score between the two experimental groups in the SCOPE group after co-variate adjustment for the ‘centre’ effect.

Table 5

Comparing the distribution of competency levels attained on psychomotor skill assessment between the SCOPE and F2FT group.

SKILL ASSESSEDGROUPCOMPETENCY LEVELTOTALFISHER’S EXACT TEST P-VALUE
12345
Pupillary ExaminationSCOPE005 (5.3%)3 (3.2%)87 (91.6%)95<.001
F2FT0022 (43.1%)3 (5.9%)26 (51.0%)51
Visual Field ExaminationSCOPE009 (9.5%)8 (8.4%)78 (82.1%)95<.001
F2FT01 (2.0%)21 (41.2%)7 (13.7%)22 (43.1%)51
Extra-Ocular Motility ExaminationSCOPE006 (6.3%)2 (2.1%)87 (91.6%)95<.001
F2FT1 (2.0%)033 (64.7%)9 (17.6%)8 (15.7%)51
Supplementary Table 1

Normality tests for the Pre-test and Post-test Multiple Choice Question Test (Total) Scores, End-of-Posting Test Scores, and Faculty Contact Time in both experimental groups.

NORMALITY TESTS AND P-VALUES
SCOPE GROUP (N = 95)F2FT GROUP (N = 51)
SHAPIRO-WILKTESTKOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TESTSHAPIRO-WILKTESTKOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST
Pre-test MCQ (Total) Test Score.663.387.387.557
Post-test MCQ (Total) Test Score.378.327.327.797
End-of-Posting Test Score.093.432.432.886
Faculty Contact Time.913.402.402.653
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.2234 | Journal eISSN: 2212-277X
Language: English
Page range: 633 - 646
Submitted on: Oct 30, 2025
Accepted on: Jun 10, 2026
Published on: Aug 24, 2026
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Chee Chew Yip, Zheng Xian Thng, Yew Sen Yuen, Ray Manotosh, Jianbin Ding, Woon Teck Clement Tan, Johnson Choon Hwai Tan, Dujeepa Samareasekera, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.