摘要：Aims: In most German medical faculties, credits in general practice can be earned via exams using multiple-choice questions (MCQ).Measures such as peer-reviews may help assure the quality of these exams.In order to use time and personnel intensive peer reviews effectively and efficiently, the procedures used are key.Therefore, we wanted to find out whether there are differences between group and individual reviews regarding defined parameters. Methods: We conducted a controlled cross-over study with three GP reviewers from four different German universities.Each reviewed 80 MCQs, 40 individually and 40 within a group, including external assessments by a panel of experts.Furthermore all reviewers were asked to evaluate the review process and the time spent carrying out these reviews. Outcomes: We found no significant differences between the reliability and the validity of individual reviews versus group reviews.On average slightly more time was spent on group reviews compared with the individual reviews.The subjective assessments of the study participants regarding their satisfaction with the process and the efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews suggest a preference for group reviews. Conclusions: Based on this study, there are no definite recommendations for or against either approach.When choosing between the two, the specific work structures and organisation at the local faculty should be taken into account.
