ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
Does 'summative' count? The influence of the awarding of study credits on feedback use and test-taking motivation in medical progress testing.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. 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.
- Longitudinal formative assessment reforms in manual therapy education: impacts on psychological wellbeing and course satisfaction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Feedback and feedforward methods in medical and higher health education: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Effect of the Question Mark Option in Progress Testing: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study.Perspectives on medical education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the increasing implementation of formative assessment in medical education, its' effect on learning behaviour remains questionable. This effect may depend on how students value formative, and summative assessments differently. Informed by Expectancy Value Theory, we compared test preparation, feedback use, and test-taking motivation of medical students who either took a purely formative progress test (formative PT-group) or a progress test that yielded study credits (summative PT-group). In a mixed-methods study design, we triangulated quantitative questionnaire data (n = 264), logging data of an online PT feedback system (n = 618), and qualitative interview data (n = 21) to compare feedback use, and test-taking motivation between the formative PT-group (n = 316), and the summative PT-group (n = 302). Self-reported, and actual feedback consultation was higher in the summative PT-group. Test preparation, and active feedback use were relatively low and similar in both groups. Both quantitative, and qualitative results showed that the motivation to prepare and consult feedback relates to how students value the assessment. In the interview data, a link could be made with goal orientation theory, as performance-oriented students perceived the formative PT as not important due to the lack of study credits. This led to low test-taking effort, and feedback consultation after the formative PT. In contrast, learning-oriented students valued the formative PT, and used it for self-study or self-assessment to gain feedback. Our results indicate that most students are less motivated to put effort in the test, and use feedback when there are no direct consequences. A supportive assessment environment that emphasizes recognition of the value of formative testing is required to motivate students to use feedback for learning.
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.