ArticleRevista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes2023
Assessment of medical students' Surgery knowledge based on Progress Test.
Article in Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress test in the undergraduate nursing course at a São Paulo public university: progressive knowledge gain reflects curricular characteristics.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Absence of item origin bias on a Brazilian interinstitutional Progress Test examination: A pooled analysis of items approach.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progress Testing (PT) is an assessment tool whose use has grown throughout Brazil in the last decade. PT makes it possible to assess the students' knowledge gain throughout the undergraduate course and, for their interpretations to be valid, their items (questions) must have adequate quality from the point of view of content validity and reliability of results. In this study, we analyzed the psychometric characteristics of the items and the performance of students in the content area of surgery from 2017 to 2023. For the analyses, we used the assumptions of Classical Test Theory, Bloom's taxonomy and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. The items were easy (average difficulty index between 0.3-0.4), with fair to good discrimination (discrimination index between 0.3-0.4) and with a predominance of medium to high taxonomy. Reliability remained substantial over the years (>0.6). Students' knowledge gain in surgery was found to be progressive and more important from the 3rd year of the undergraduate course, reaching approximately 70-75% in the 6th year. This measurements framework can be replicated in other contexts for a better understanding of student learning and for qualification of evaluation processes.
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.