BACKGROUND: Progress testing is a method of assessing longitudinal progress of students using a single best answer format pitched at the standard of a newly graduated doctor. AIM: To evaluate the results of the first year of summative progress testing at the University of Auckland for Years 2 and 4 in 2013. SUBJECTS: Two cohorts of medical students from Years 2 and 4 of the Medical Program. METHODS: A survey was administered to all involved students. Open text feedback was also sought. Psychometric data were collected on test performance, and indices of reliability and validity were calculated. RESULTS: The three tests showed increased mean scores over time. Reliability of the assessments was uniformly high. There was good concurrent validity. Students believe that progress testing assists in integrating science with clinical knowledge and improve learning. Year 4 students reported improved knowledge retention and deeper understanding. CONCLUSION: Progress testing has been successfully introduced into the Faculty for two separate year cohorts and results have met expectations. Other year cohorts will be added incrementally. RECOMMENDATION: Key success factors for introducing progress testing are partnership with an experienced university, multiple and iterative briefings with staff and students as well as demonstrating the usefulness of progress testing by providing students with detailed feedback on performance.

Background: Progress testing was introduced to the MBChB programme at the University of Auckland in 2013. As there has been a focus in published literature on aspects relating to the format or function of progress tests, the purpose of this study was to explore a qualitative student perspective on the introduction of progress testing and its impact on approaches to learning and perceived stress. Methods: This article presents the qualitative aspects of a longitudinal evaluation study. The qualitative data were derived from eight focus groups of Year 2-5 medical students in the University of Auckland medical programme. Results: Two themes, 'Impact on Learning' and 'Emotional Wellbeing' and their subthemes offered insight into student perceptions and behaviour. Students described a variety of learning responses to progress testing that clustered around the employment of a range of learning strategies based on their experience of sitting progress tests and their individualised feedback. A range of emotional responses were also expressed, with some finding progress tests stressful, while others enjoyed not needing to intensively cram before the tests. Conclusions: Progress tests appear to influence the approach of students to their learning. They employ a mix of learning strategies, shaped by their performance, individualised feedback and the learning environment. While students expressed some stress and anxiety with respect to sitting progress tests, this form of testing was viewed by these students as no worse, and sometimes better than traditional assessments.