Optimizing Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine Course Grading System by Spreadsheet Software

Main Article Content

Pennapa Aubcherye
Narin Aubcherye
Butsakorn Noysang
Patarawan Woratanarat
Sukij Laohajaroensombat


Background: Complex processes in grading system occasionally delay time-to-report and affect the accuracy of the report in Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine Course.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of spreadsheet software in the grading processes of the Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine Course.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University. Exam scores of the 5th year medical students between 2014 and 2018 were collected. This study included complete summative data and excluded any data from repeated examinations. The effectiveness of grading system using spreadsheet software was evaluated the primary outcome as time-to-report (days) and accuracy of grade reports.

Results: There were 893 students from 5 academic years, median duration of grade reports was 2.5 days (range, 0 - 30). Grade reports were 100% accurate. The analysis showed the longest duration of time-to-report was in 2014 with median 10.5 days (range, 0 - 30), and the shortest duration was in 2018 with median 0 day (range, 0 - 4). During 5 consecutive years, the spreadsheet software can reduce time-to-report significantly (P = .01).

Conclusions: Spreadsheet software is an effective method to reduce time-to-report and reporting errors in grading system.


Article Details

How to Cite
Aubcherye, P. . ., Aubcherye, N. . ., Noysang, B. . ., Woratanarat, P. . ., & Laohajaroensombat, S. (2021). Optimizing Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine Course Grading System by Spreadsheet Software. Ramathibodi Medical Journal, 44(2), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.33165/rmj.2021.44.2.236081
Original Articles


Monrad SU, Mangrulkar RS, Woolliscroft JO, et al. Competency committees in undergraduate medical education: approaching tensions using a polarity management framework. Acad Med. 2019;94(12):1865-1872. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002816

Bullock JL, Lai CJ, Lockspeiser T, et al. In pursuit of honors: a multi-institutional study of students’ perceptions of clerkship evaluation and grading. Acad Med. 2019;94(11S):S48-S56. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002905

McLachlan JC, Whiten SC. Marks, scores and grades; scaling and aggregating student assessment outcomes. Med Educ. 2000;34(10):788-797. doi:10.1046/j.1365-29232000.00664.x

Wagner ML, Suh DC, Cruz S. Peer- and self-grading compared to faculty grading. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(7):130. doi:10.5688/ajpe757130

Hunnicutt SS. An automated grading spreadsheet for reports or presentations. J Chem Educ. 2016;93(1):210-212. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00553

Schinske J, Tanner K. Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014;13(2):159-166. doi:10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-005

Most read articles by the same author(s)