ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Development of a shared item repository for progress testing in veterinary education.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surveying Students and Alumni for Veterinary Curricular Renewal in a Portuguese Institution.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Knowledge attainment, learning approaches, and self-perceived study burnout among European veterinary students.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Evaluation and spatiotemporal evolution of veterinary talent competitiveness: a new perspective of veterinary education.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Progress testing in education is an assessment principle for the measurement of students' progress over time, e.g., from start to graduation. Progress testing offers valid longitudinal formative measurement of the growth in the cognitive skills of the individual students within the subjects of the test as well as a tool for educators to monitor potential educational gaps and mismatches within the curriculum in relation to the basic veterinary learning outcomes. Methods: Six veterinary educational establishments in Denmark, Finland, Germany (Hannover), the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden established in cooperation with the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE) a common veterinary item repository that can be used for progress testing in European Veterinary Education Establishments (VEEs), linear as well as computer adaptive, covering the EAEVE veterinary subjects and theoretical "Day One Competencies." First, a blueprint was created, suitable item formats were identified, and a quality assurance process for reviewing and approving items was established. The items were trialed to create a database of validated and calibrated items, and the responses were subsequently psychometrically analyzed according to Modern Test Theory. Results: In total, 1,836 items were submitted of which 1,342 were approved by the reviewers for trial testing. 1,119 students from all study years and all partners VEEs participated in one or more of six item trials, and 1,948 responses were collected. Responses were analyzed using Rasch Modeling (analysis of item-fit, differential item function, item-response characteristics). A total of 821 calibrated items of various difficulty levels matching the veterinary students' abilities and covering the veterinary knowledge domains have been banked. Discussion: The item bank is now ready to be used for formative progress testing in European veterinary education. This paper presents and discusses possible pitfalls, problems, and solutions when establishing an international veterinary progress test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.