Progress testing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:00, 12 March 2012

Progress tests are longitudinal, feedback oriented educational assessment tools for the evaluation of development and sustainability of cognitive knowledge during a learning process. They represent a cross-section of the knowledge level expected of a graduate. The participants take the test regularly (e.g. 1 to 4 times/year) and, according to their individual learning progress, increasingly achieve better results. They are well established and increasingly used in medical education in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. They are used formatively and summatively. They allow feedback for students and faculty on a longitudinal measurement base.

History

Progress Testing was independently introduced at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands,^[1] and the University of Missouri, Kansas City ^[2] for different reasons.^[3] In the Netherlands the use of problem-based learning (PBL) was the reason progress testing was developed as this assessment format was meant to encourage deeper learning styles. It was also used to compare students' performance from reformed schools to those from more traditional schools.

Advantages

Progress tests provide even more benefits.^[4] Progress tests provide a rich source of information: the comprehensive nature in combination with the cross-sectional and longitudinal design offers a wealth of information both for individual learners as well as for curriculum evaluations.

Progress Testing fosters knowledge retention: the repeated testing of the same comprehensive domain of knowledge means that there is no point testing facts that could be remembered if studied the night before. Long term knowledge and knowledge retention is fostered because item content remains relevant long after the knowledge has been learned.

Progress Testing removes the need for resit examinations: every new test occasion is a renewed opportunity to demonstrate growth of knowledge.

Progress Testing allows early detection of high achievers: some learners perform (far) beyond the expected level of their phase in training (e.g. they might have had relevant previous other training) and, depending on their performance, individual and more speeded pathways through the curriculum could be offered.

Progress Testing brings stability in assessment procedures: curriculum changes, changes in content, have no consequence for the progress test provided the end outcomes are unchanged.

Progress Testing provides excellent benchmarking opportunities: progress tests are not limited to a single school nor to PBL curricula and evaluations can easily be done to compare graduates and the effectiveness of different curriculum approaches.

Disadvantages

Naturally, there are disadvantages. The required resources for test development and scoring and the need for a central organization are two very important ones.

Scoring,^[5] psychometric procedures ^[6] for reducing test difficulty variation and standard setting procedures ^[7] are more complex in progress testing.

Finally progress tests do not work in heterogeneous programs with early specialization (like in many health sciences programs). In more homogenous programs, such as most medical programs, they work really well and pay off in relation to driving learning and use of resources.

Source: Freeman A, van der Vleuten CPM, Nouns Z, Ricketts C. Progress testing internationally. Medical Teacher 2010; 32: 451-455

References

^ van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.
^ Arnold L, Willoughby TL. 1990. The quarterly profile examination. Academic Medicine 65(8):515–516.
^ Swanson DB, Case SM, van der Vleuten CPM. 1991. Strategies for student assessment. In: Boud D, Feletti G, editors. The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page. pp 260–273.
^ van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.
^ Muijtjens AM, Mameren HV, Hoogenboom RJ, Evers JL, van der Vleuten CP. 1999. The effect of a ‘don’t know’ option on test scores: Number-right and formula scoring compared. Medical Education 33(4):267–275.
^ Shen L. 2000. Progress testing for postgraduate medical education: A four year experiment of American College of Osteopathic Surgeons Resident Examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 5(2):117–129
^ Verhoeven BH, Snellen-Balendong HA, Hay IT, Boon JM, van der Linde MJ, Blitz-Lindeque JJ, Hoogenboom RJI, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. 2005. The versatility of progress testing assessed in an international context: A start for benchmarking global standardization? Medical Teacher 27(6):514–520

External links

Progress test Medicine Universitätsmedizin Berlin

[1] van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.

[2] Arnold L, Willoughby TL. 1990. The quarterly profile examination. Academic Medicine 65(8):515–516.

[3] Swanson DB, Case SM, van der Vleuten CPM. 1991. Strategies for student assessment. In: Boud D, Feletti G, editors. The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page. pp 260–273.

[4] van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.

[5] Muijtjens AM, Mameren HV, Hoogenboom RJ, Evers JL, van der Vleuten CP. 1999. The effect of a ‘don’t know’ option on test scores: Number-right and formula scoring compared. Medical Education 33(4):267–275.

[6] Shen L. 2000. Progress testing for postgraduate medical education: A four year experiment of American College of Osteopathic Surgeons Resident Examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 5(2):117–129

[7] Verhoeven BH, Snellen-Balendong HA, Hay IT, Boon JM, van der Linde MJ, Blitz-Lindeque JJ, Hoogenboom RJI, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. 2005. The versatility of progress testing assessed in an international context: A start for benchmarking global standardization? Medical Teacher 27(6):514–520

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==History==
-Progress Testing was independently introduced at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands,<ref>van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.</ref> and the University of Missouri, Kansas City <ref>Arnold L, Willoughby TL. 1990. The quarterly profile examination. Academic Medicine 65(8):515–516.</ref> for different reasons.<ref>Swanson DB, Case SM, van der Vleuten CPM. 1991. Strategies for student assessment. In: Boud D, Feletti G, editors. The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page. pp 260–273.</ref> In the Netherlands [[problem-based learning]] (PBL) was the reason. In PBL the format was meant to encourage deeper learning styles. It was also used to compare students' performance from reformed schools to those from more traditional schools.
+Progress Testing was independently introduced at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands,<ref>van der Vleuten CPM, Verwijnen GM, Wijnen WHFW. 1996. Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Teacher 18(2):103–110.</ref> and the University of Missouri, Kansas City <ref>Arnold L, Willoughby TL. 1990. The quarterly profile examination. Academic Medicine 65(8):515–516.</ref> for different reasons.<ref>Swanson DB, Case SM, van der Vleuten CPM. 1991. Strategies for student assessment. In: Boud D, Feletti G, editors. The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page. pp 260–273.</ref> In the Netherlands the use of [[problem-based learning]] (PBL) was the reason progress testing was developed as this assessment format was meant to encourage deeper learning styles. It was also used to compare students' performance from reformed schools to those from more traditional schools.
 :