Literature DB >> 8949534

An international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: the Maastricht Progress Test.

M G Albano1, F Cavallo, R Hoogenboom, F Magni, G Majoor, F Manenti, L Schuwirth, I Stiegler, C van der Vleuten.   

Abstract

The increasing international mobility of medical students has inspired the search for an international assessment format. As one step along this line, kinetics of knowledge acquisition and final cognitive levels of students were compared among one Dutch, one German and four Italian medical faculties. For this comparison, the Maastricht Progress Test (MPT) was used. For four out of the six participating faculties, it was possible to compare the level of knowledge of sixth-year students. These data showed no significant differences on the test as a whole. On the other hand, as judged from cross-sectional data on students from all study years, the kinetics of knowledge acquisition showed different trends. In one school applying problem-based learning, acquisition of knowledge by students occurred almost linearly. In another school, over the first 2 years, acquisition of knowledge occurred only in the basic sciences but not in clinical or public health/behavioural sciences. In two other schools over that same period, students seemed to gain no knowledge at all. In some faculties, a marked boost in knowledge was noted with third- or fourth-year students. These findings may be explained by peculiarities of the respective curricula, selection of students during their studies, and national or local assessment procedures. It is preliminarily concluded that the different educational approaches and assessment systems in medical education in Europe seem to have only limited influence on the final level of knowledge of the graduates. On the other hand, these differences may influence the kinetics of knowledge acquisition, especially in distinct domains like basic or clinical sciences. Therefore, the MPT may not be suitabe to solve the problem of assessment of individual international exchange students, but it may be helpful in identifying corresponding cognitive levels on, for example, basic sciences for students in different curricula.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8949534     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1996.tb00824.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  10 in total

Review 1.  Progress examinations in pharmacy education.

Authors:  Cecilia M Plaza
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Intrinsic motivation of preclinical medical students participating in high-fidelity mannequin simulation.

Authors:  Brent Thoma; Emily M Hayden; Nelson Wong; Jason L Sanders; Greg Malin; James A Gordon
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2015-04-22

3.  Progress testing 2.0: clinical skills meets necessary science.

Authors:  Jonathan Gold; Robin DeMuth; Brian Mavis; Dianne Wagner
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2015-05-05

4.  Vertically integrated medical education and the readiness for practice of graduates.

Authors:  Marjo Wijnen-Meijer; Olle Ten Cate; Marieke van der Schaaf; Chantalle Burgers; Jan Borleffs; Sigrid Harendza
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Comparison of the evaluation of formative assessment at two medical faculties with different conditions of undergraduate training, assessment and feedback.

Authors:  Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns; Yassin Karay; Johann Arias; Kirsten Gehlhar; Michaela Zupanic
Journal:  GMS J Med Educ       Date:  2020-06-15

6.  Investigating possible causes of bias in a progress test translation: an one-edged sword.

Authors:  Dario Cecilio-Fernandes; André Bremers; Carlos Fernando Collares; Wybe Nieuwland; Cees van der Vleuten; René A Tio
Journal:  Korean J Med Educ       Date:  2019-08-26

7.  Does reflection have an effect upon case-solving abilities of undergraduate medical students?

Authors:  Sebastiaan Koole; Tim Dornan; Leen Aper; Albert Scherpbier; Martin Valcke; Janke Cohen-Schotanus; Anselme Derese
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  The use of progress testing.

Authors:  Lambert W T Schuwirth; Cees P M van der Vleuten
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2012-03-10

9.  A first report of East Asian students' perception of progress testing: a focus group study.

Authors:  Yasushi Matsuyama; Arno M M Muijtjens; Makoto Kikukawa; Renee Stalmeijer; Reiko Murakami; Shizukiyo Ishikawa; Hitoaki Okazaki
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  First reported implementation of a German-language progress test in an undergraduate dental curriculum: A prospective study.

Authors:  B Kirnbauer; A Avian; N Jakse; P Rugani; D Ithaler; R Egger
Journal:  Eur J Dent Educ       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 2.355

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.