Written-Based Progress Testing: A Scoping Review. (27th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dion, Vincent; St-Onge, Christina; Bartman, Ilona; Touchie, Claire; Pugh, Debra
• Is Part Of: Academic medicine. Volume 97:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: 747
• Page End: 757
• Publication Date: 2022-04-27
• Subjects: Medical education -- Periodicals; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Medical personnel -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.711
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004507
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-2446

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Progress testing is an increasingly popular form of assessment in which a comprehensive test is administered to learners repeatedly over time. To inform potential users, this scoping review aimed to document barriers, facilitators, and potential outcomes of the use of written progress tests in higher education. Method: The authors followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology to identify and summarize the literature on progress testing. They searched 6 databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) on 2 occasions (May 22, 2018, and April 21, 2020) and included articles written in English or French and pertaining to written progress tests in higher education. Two authors screened articles for the inclusion criteria (90% agreement), then data extraction was performed by pairs of authors. Using a snowball approach, the authors also screened additional articles identified from the included reference lists. They completed a thematic analysis through an iterative process. Results: A total of 104 articles were included. The majority of progress tests used a multiple-choice and/or true-or-false question format (95, 91.3%) and were administered 4 times a year (38, 36.5%). The most documented source of validity evidence was internal consistency (38, 36.5%). Four major themes were identified: (1) barriers and challenges to the implementation of progress testing (e.g., need for additional resources); (2) established collaboration as a facilitator of progress testing implementation; (3) factors that increase the acceptance of progress testing (e.g., formative use); and (4) outcomes and consequences of progress test use (e.g., progress testing contributes to an increase in knowledge). Conclusions: Progress testing appears to have a positive impact on learning, and there is significant validity evidence to support its use. Although progress testing is resource- and time-intensive, strategies such as collaboration with other institutions may facilitate its use.