ArticleBMC medical education2024
The progress test as a structuring initiative for programmatic assessment.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Faculty development for undergraduate student programmatic assessment: a Brazilian multi-centered longitudinal study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Continuous assessment in medical education: Exploring students' views on the progress test.PloS one · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Progress Test is an individual assessment applied to all students at the same time and on a regular basis. The test was structured in the medical undergraduate education of a conglomerate of schools to structure a programmatic assessment integrated into teaching. This paper presents the results of four serial applications of the progress test and the feedback method to students.
methodsThis assessment comprises 120 items offered online by means of a personal password. Items are authored by faculty, peer-reviewed, and approved by a committee of experts. The items are classified by five major areas, by topics used by the National Board of Medical Examiners and by medical specialties related to a national Unified Health System. The correction uses the Item Response Theory with analysis by the "Rasch" model that considers the difficulty of the item.
resultsStudent participation increased along the four editions of the tests, considering the number of enrollments. The median performances increased in the comparisons among the sequential years in all tests, except for test1 - the first test offered to schools. Between subsequent years of education, 2nd-1st; 4th-3rd and 5th-4th there was an increase in median scores from progress tests 2 through 4. The final year of undergraduate showed a limited increase compared to the 5th year. There is a consistent increase in the median, although with fluctuations between the observed intervals.
conclusionThe progress test promoted the establishment of regular feedback among students, teachers and coordinators and paved the road to engagement much needed to construct an institutional programmatic assessment.
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.