A systemic framework for the progress test: Strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide No. 71

被引:100
作者
Wrigley, William [1 ]
Van Der Vleuten, Cees P. M. [1 ]
Freeman, Adrian [1 ]
Muijtjens, Arno [1 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Fac Hlth Med & Life Sci, Dept Educ Dev & Res, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS; STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURE; ITEM-WRITING FLAWS; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; GENERAL-PRACTICE; KNOWLEDGE; QUALITY; COLLABORATION; PERFORMANCE; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.3109/0142159X.2012.704437
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
There has been increasing use and significance of progress testing in medical education. It is used in many ways and with several formats to reflect the variety of curricula and assessment purposes. These developments have occurred alongside a recognised sensitivity for error variance inherent in multiple choice tests from which challenges to its validity and reliability have arisen. This Guide presents a generic, systemic framework to help identify and explore improvements in the quality and defensibility of progress test data. The framework draws on the combined experience of the Dutch consortium, an individual medical school in the United Kingdom, and the bulk of the progress test literature to date. It embeds progress testing as a quality-controlled assessment tool for improving learning, teaching and the demonstration of educational standards. The paper describes strengths, highlights constraints and explores issues for improvement. These may assist in the establishment of potential or new progress testing in medical education programmes. They can also guide the evaluation and improvement of existing programmes.
引用
收藏
页码:683 / 697
页数:15
相关论文
共 88 条
[1]   Progress testing in resource-poor countries: A case from Mozambique [J].
Aarts, Rembrant ;
Steidel, Konrad ;
Manuel, Beatriz A. F. ;
Driessen, Erik W. .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2010, 32 (06) :461-463
[2]  
Al Alwan I, 2011, Educ Health (Abingdon), V24, P493
[3]   An international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: The Maastricht Progress Test [J].
Albano, MG ;
Cavallo, F ;
Hoogenboom, R ;
Magni, F ;
Majoor, G ;
Manenti, F ;
Schuwirth, L ;
Stiegler, I ;
vanderVleuten, C .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1996, 30 (04) :239-245
[4]   An empirical investigation of the effects of three methods of handling guessing and risk taking on the psychometric indices of a test [J].
Alnabhan, M .
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2002, 30 (07) :645-652
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1999, STAND ED PSYCH TEST
[6]   Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: AMEE Guide No. 37 [J].
Bandaranayake, Raja C. .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2008, 30 (9-10) :836-845
[7]   Competence in the musculoskeletal system: assessing the progression of knowledge through an undergraduate medical course [J].
Basu, S ;
Roberts, C ;
Newble, DI ;
Snaith, M .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2004, 38 (12) :1253-1260
[8]   Adaptation of medical progress testing to a dental setting [J].
Bennett, Jon ;
Freeman, Adrian ;
Coombes, Lee ;
Kay, Liz ;
Ricketts, Chris .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2010, 32 (06) :500-502
[9]   Measuring knowledge and clinical reasoning skills in a problem-based curriculum [J].
Boshuizen, HPA ;
vanderVleuten, CPM ;
Schmidt, HG ;
MachielsBongaerts, M .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1997, 31 (02) :115-121
[10]   Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations [J].
Bridge, PD ;
Musial, J ;
Frank, R ;
Roe, T ;
Sawilowsky, S .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2003, 25 (04) :414-421