PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16332547

Progress testing with short answer questions.

Abstract

The concept of progress testing was developed in the 1970s. Significant features of progress tests are that the content is not linked to any specific course or unit, and that it reflects the final objectives of the curriculum as a whole. The questions are taken from a broad domain and cover a range of disciplines. Furthermore, the test is taken repeatedly over a period of time, to monitor students' progress. Known progress tests all use closed format questions. In 2002-2003 the University Medical Center Utrecht initiated a progress test with short answer questions. The test consists of 40 cases, each with a clinical and a basic science short-answer key feature question. This differs from other progress tests that use close format items, but also in the philosophy of mastery level testing and in the deliberate linking of basic science concepts to clinical case vignettes. The first four executions of the test show high internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha 0.85 to 0.87) and satisfactory item parameters. The effort of marking answers is reasonable, the effort of writing case vignettes with short-answer items is less than writing MC-items if similar test reliabilities are to be achieved.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Rademakers, Th J Ten Cate, P R Bär. 2005. Progress testing with short answer questions.. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500062749

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗