20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of a competency-based formative progress test with student-generated MCQs: Results from a multi-centre pilot study Translated title: Entwicklung eines formativen kompetenzorientierten Progresstests mit MC-Fragen von Studierenden – Ergebnisse einer multifakultären Pilotstudie

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Progress tests provide students feedback on their level of proficiency over the course of their medical studies. Peer-assisted learning and competency-based education have become increasingly important in medical education. Although progress tests have been proven to be useful as a longitudinal feedback instrument, there are currently no progress tests that have been created in cooperation with students or that focus on competency in medical education.

          In this study, we investigated the extent to which students can be included in the development of a progress test and demonstrated that aspects of knowledge related to competency can be represented on a competency-based progress test.

          Methods: A two-dimensional blueprint for 144 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) covering groups of medical subjects and groups of competency areas was generated by three expert groups for developing the competency-based progress test. A total of 31 students from seven medical schools in Germany actively participated in this exercise. After completing an intensive and comprehensive training programme, the students generated and reviewed the test questions for the competency-based progress test using a separate platform of the ItemManagementSystem (IMS). This test was administered as a formative test to 469 students in a pilot study in November 2013 at eight medical schools in Germany. The scores were analysed for the overall test and differentiated according to the subject groups and competency areas.

          Results: A pool of more than 200 MCQs was compiled by the students for pilot use, of which 118 student-generated MCQs were used in the progress test. University instructors supplemented this pool with 26 MCQs, which primarily addressed the area of scientific skills. The post-review showed that student-generated MCQs were of high quality with regard to test statistic criteria and content. Overall, the progress test displayed a very high reliability. When the academic years were compared, the progress test mapped out over the course of study not only by the overall test but also in terms of the subject groups and competency areas.

          Outlook: Further development in cooperation with students will be continued. Focus will be on compiling additional questions and test formats that can represent competency at a higher skill level, such as key feature questions, situational judgement test questions and OSCE. In addition, the feedback formats will be successively expanded. The intention is also to offer the formative competency-based progress test online.

          Zusammenfassung

          Einleitung: Progresstests geben Studierenden Feedback über ihren Wissenszuwachs im Verlauf ihres Studiums. In der medizinischen Ausbildung haben Peer-assisted-learning und kompetenzbasierte Ausbildung zunehmend Bedeutung erlangt. Während Progresstests sich als longitudinales Feedback-Instrument bewährt haben, gibt es bisher keine Progresstests, die in Zusammenarbeit mit Studierenden erstellt wurden und die die Kompetenzorientierung der medizinischen Ausbildung aufgreifen.

          In dieser Studie soll zum einen untersucht werden, inwieweit Studierende in die Prüfungsentwicklung eines Progresstests eingebunden werden können und zum anderen soll gezeigt werden, dass sich die Wissensaspekte von Kompetenzen in einem kompetenzorientierten Progresstest abbilden lassen.

          Methoden: Für den kompetenzorientierten Progresstest wurde ein zweidimensionaler „Blueprint“ für 144 MC-Fragen mit gruppierten medizinischen Fächern und gruppierten Kompetenzbereichen von drei Expertengruppen erstellt. An der Entwicklung des kompetenzorientierten Progresstests haben sich 31 Studierende aus sieben medizinischen Fakultäten in Deutschland aktiv beteiligt. Nach einem intensiven und umfassenden Schulungsprogramm erstellen und reviewten die Studierenden unter Nutzung einer eigenständigen Plattform des ItemManagementSystems die Prüfungsfragen des kompetenzorientierten Progresstests. Der kompetenzorientierte Progresstest wurde im November 2013 an acht medizinischen Fakultäten in Deutschland als formativer Test im Rahmen einer Pilotstudie durchgeführt, an dem 469 Studierende teilnahmen. Die erzielten Punktwerte wurden für den Gesamttest sowie in differenzierter Form für die „Fächergruppen“ und „Kompetenzbereiche“ analysiert.

          Ergebnisse: Für den Piloteinsatz im Jahr 2013 wurde von den Studierenden ein MC-Fragenpool von über 200 MC-Fragen entwickelt. 118 MC-Fragen von Studierenden wurden im Progresstest verwendet. 26 MC-Fragen wurden von Dozenten insbesondere im Bereich Wissenschaftskompetenz ergänzt. Es zeigte sich, dass die MC-Fragen von Studierenden hinsichtlich teststatistischer Kriterien und inhaltlicher Prüfung im Postreview von hoher Qualität waren. Der Progresstest weist insgesamt eine sehr hohe Reliabilität auf. Im Vergleich der Studienjahre bildete sich der Progress im Verlauf des Studiums sowohl in der Gesamtbetrachtung des Tests als auch hinsichtlich der „Fächergruppen“ und „Kompetenzbereiche“ ab.

          Ausblick: Die Weiterentwicklung in Kooperation mit Studierenden wird fortgesetzt. Im Fokus steht dabei die Erweiterung auf zusätzliche Fragen- und Prüfungsformate, die Kompetenzorientierung auf einem höheren Kompetenzlevel abbilden können, wie z.B. Key Feature-Fragen, Situational-Judgement-Test-Fragen und OSCE. Des Weiteren werden die Feedbackformate sukzessive erweitert. Auch ist geplant, den formativen kompetenzorientierten Progresstest webbasiert anzubieten.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education.

            Peer teaching, an educational arrangement in which one student teaches one or more fellow students, is applied in several forms in medical education. A number of authors have linked peer teaching to theories of education and psychology. Yet no comprehensive overview of what theory can offer to understand dynamics of peer teaching has been previously provided. A framework is designed to categorize forms of peer teaching, distinguishing three dimensions: distance in stage of education, formality of the educational setting and size of the group taught. Theories are categorized in two dimensions: theories that explain benefits of peer teaching from a cognitive versus a social-psychological perspective, and theories that explain benefits for peer learners versus peer teachers. Both dimensional frameworks help to clarify why and in what conditions peer teaching may help students to learn.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The rising cost of NIH-funded biomedical research?

              During the last decade, total appropriations for the NIH have grown in current as well as constant dollars. Constant dollar expenditures for indirect costs and research project grants have increased, as also has the number of the latter, while such expenditures for research centers, training, and research contracts have shrunk. The most impressive redistribution in emphasis has been toward traditional research project grants (R01s). The size of the average R01 award, discounted for inflation, has grown at an annual rate of 1.1% during the last decade and 1.3% since fiscal year (FY) 1970; that of the average research program project (P01) has declined over the same periods, after a slight rise in the early 1970s. Factors contributing to the modest rise in the real (constant-dollar) size of the average R01 are explored. The regularity with which current-services-requirements estimates for the NIH exceed inflation reflects real growth in the program, particularly in the category of research project grants; the artifact of basing calculations on the post-rather than pre-"negotiated" levels of awards in the "current" year; and the extent to which the project periods of awards have been extended. The effect of lengthening project periods is slow to become manifest, but inexorably swells the pool of non-competing awards; decisions in this area undertaken in 1985, and continued at least through FY 1988, could very significantly increase current services requirements in FYs 1991 and 1992.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                GMS Z Med Ausbild
                GMS Z Med Ausbild
                GMS Z Med Ausbild
                GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung
                German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
                1860-7446
                1860-3572
                15 October 2015
                2015
                : 32
                : 4 , Prüfungen
                : Doc46
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Heidelberg, Faculty of Medicine, Heidelberg, Germany
                [2 ]University of Heidelberg, Center of Excellence for Assessment in Medicine - Baden-Wuerttemberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                [3 ]Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg Competence Center for Evaluation of Teaching in Medicine - Baden-Wuerttemberg, Freiburg, Germany
                [4 ]University of Tübingen, Faculty of Medicine, Tübingen, Germany
                [5 ]University of Ulm, Faculty of Medicine, Ulm, Germany
                [6 ]University of Marburg, Faculty of Medicine, Marburg, Germany
                [7 ]University of Magdeburg, Faculty of Medicine, Magdeburg, Germany
                [8 ]University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany
                [9 ]University of Witten/Herdecke, Faculty of Medicine, Witten, Germany
                Author notes
                *To whom correspondence should be addressed: Stefan Wagener, University of Heidelberg, Faculty of Medicine, Im Neuenheimer Feld 346, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany, E-mail: stefan.wagener@ 123456med.uni-heidelberg.de
                Article
                zma000988 Doc46 urn:nbn:de:0183-zma0009886
                10.3205/zma000988
                4606478
                02b89bb2-9734-4de5-ac27-637e767d5c72
                Copyright © 2015 Wagener et al.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

                History
                : 18 November 2014
                : 06 May 2015
                : 25 February 2015
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                progress test,competency-based,medical students,medical education,multiple-choice questions

                Comments

                Comment on this article