Progress Test is an objective assessment, consisting of 60 to 150 multiple-choice questions, designed to promote an assessment of the cognitive skills expected at the end of undergraduate school. This test is applied to all students on the same day, so that it is possible to compare the results between grades and analyze the development of knowledge performance throughout the course. This study aimed to carry out a systematic and literary review about Progress Test in medical schools in Brazil and around the world, understanding the benefits of its implementation for the development of learning for the student, the teacher and the institution. The study was carried out from July 2018 to April 2019, which addressed articles published from January 2002 to March 2019. The keywords used were: “Progress Test in Medical Schools” and “Item Response Theory in Medicine” in the PubMed, Scielo, and Lilacs platforms. There was no language limitation in article selection, but the research was carried out in English. A total of 192,026 articles were identified, and after applying advanced search filters, 11 articles were included in the study. The Progress Test (PTMed) has been applied in medical schools, either alone or in groups of partner schools, since the late 1990s. The test results build the students’ performance curves, which allow us to identify weaknesses and strengths of the students in the several areas of knowledge related to the course. The Progress Test is not an exclusive instrument for assessing student performance, but it is also important as an assessment tool for academic management use and thus, it is crucial that institutions take an active role in the preparation and analysis of this assessment data. Assessments designed to test clinical competence in medical students need to be valid and reliable. For the evaluative method to be valid it is necessary that the subject be extensively reviewed and studied, aiming at improvements and adjustments in test performance.
Progress Test is an objective assessment, consisting of 60 to 150 multiple-choice questions, designed to promote an assessment of the cognitive skills expected at the end of undergraduate school. This test is applied to all students on the same day, so that it is possible to compare the results between grades and analyze the development of knowledge performance throughout the course. This study aimed to carry out a systematic and literary review about Progress Test in medical schools in Brazil and around the world, understanding the benefits of its implementation for the development of learning for the student, the teacher and the institution. The study was carried out from July 2018 to April 2019, which addressed articles published from January 2002 to March 2019. The keywords used were: “Progress Test in Medical Schools” and “Item Response Theory in Medicine” in the PubMed, Scielo, and Lilacs platforms. There was no language limitation in article selection, but the research was carried out in English. A total of 192,026 articles were identified, and after applying advanced search filters, 11 articles were included in the study. The Progress Test (PTMed) has been applied in medical schools, either alone or in groups of partner schools, since the late 1990s. The test results build the students’ performance curves, which allow us to identify weaknesses and strengths of the students in the several areas of knowledge related to the course. The Progress Test is not an exclusive instrument for assessing student performance, but it is also important as an assessment tool for academic management use and thus, it is crucial that institutions take an active role in the preparation and analysis of this assessment data. Assessments designed to test clinical competence in medical students need to be valid and reliable. For the evaluative method to be valid it is necessary that the subject be extensively reviewed and studied, aiming at improvements and adjustments in test performance.
Resumo: Introdução: Não se sabe se a ausência de estudantes de Medicina ao Teste de Progresso (TP) se dá de forma aleatória ou por alguma característica sistemática deles, o que poderia influenciar a representatividade dos resultados obtidos pelos participantes. Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivos comparar os índices de desempenho acadêmico, no curso de Medicina da UFSC, dos alunos presentes e ausentes ao TP em 2019; propor uma maneira de estimar, a partir desses índices, quais seriam as notas dos faltantes se tivessem participado do TP; e identificar fatores associados à ausência ao TP. Método: Foram comparadas as médias dos índices de desempenho acadêmico, globais e nas diferentes fases (semestres) dos grupos de alunos presentes e ausentes ao TP, utilizando teste t de Student para amostras independentes. Por meio de uma técnica de regressão linear, foram imputadas as prováveis notas no TP ao grupo de alunos ausentes. Resultado: As médias globais dos três indicadores acadêmicos foram significativamente menores nos alunos ausentes ao TP (p variando de < 0,03 a < 0,0001); em dez das 11 fases (semestres) analisadas do curso, os indicadores acadêmicos dos faltosos foram piores do que dos presentes. A imputação de notas no TP aos ausentes permitiu verificar que existe correlação (R = 0,62) entre a porcentagem destes e a diferença de notas entre os grupos que realizaram e os que faltaram ao TP. Entre os alunos do gênero masculino, 25,8% não fizeram o TP, enquanto no gênero feminino foram 16,6% (diferença com p < 0,01). Conclusão: A ausência de alunos ao TP não se dá de forma aleatória. Entre os faltosos, há uma tendência sistemática de existirem alunos com piores índices de desempenho acadêmico. O uso de imputação múltipla de dados evidencia uma correlação entre a porcentagem de faltosos e a diferença na média da nota no TP, desse grupo, comparada à média da nota dos participantes. A proporção de homens que faltaram ao TP foi significativamente maior do que a de mulheres.
Introduction: It is not known whether the absence of medical students at the Progress Test (PT) is random event or if it due to some systematic characteristic of the students, which could influence the representativeness of the results obtained by the participants. Objectives: 1) to compare the academic performance indexes, in UFSC Medical School, of students who were present and absent from the PT in 2019; 2) to propose a way to estimate, based on these indexes, what the absentee’s grades would be if they had participated in the PT; 3) to identify factors associated with absence from the PT. Method: The averages of academic performance indexes, overall and in the different phases (semesters) in the groups of students who were present and absent from the PT, were compared using Student’s t test for independent samples. Using a linear regression technique, the probable PT scores were assigned to the group of absent students. Results: The global averages of the three academic indicators were significantly lower in students absent from the PT (p ranging from < 0.03 to < 0.0001); in 10 of the 11 analyzed course phases (semesters), the academic indicators of absentees were worse than those present at the test. The attribution of PT grades to the absentees allowed us to verify that there is a correlation (R=0.62) between the percentage of these students and the difference in grades between the groups that took and those that did not take the PT. Among male students, 25.8% did not attend the PT, while among female students the number of absentees was 16.6% (difference with p <0.01). Conclusions: The absence of students at the PT does not occur randomly. Among the absentees, there is a systematic tendency to have students with worse academic performance. The use of multiple imputation of data demonstrate a correlation between the percentage of absentees and the difference in the average of grades in the PT of this group, compared to the average of the participants’ grades. The proportion of male students who missed the PT was significantly higher than that of female students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.