PurposeProgress 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. MethodThe 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,

PurposeNarrative comments are increasingly used in assessment to document trainees' performance and to make important decisions about academic progress. However, little is known about how to document the quality of narrative comments, since traditional psychometric analysis cannot be applied. The authors aimed to generate a list of quality indicators for narrative comments, to identify recommendations for writing high-quality narrative comments, and to document factors that influence the quality of narrative comments used in assessments in higher education. MethodThe authors conducted a scoping review according to Arksey & O'Malley's framework. The search strategy yielded 690 articles from 6 databases.

Background & Need for Innovation: Appraising the quality of narratives used in assessment is challenging for educators and administrators. Although some quality indicators for writing narratives exist in the literature, they remain context specific and not always sufficiently operational to be easily used. Creating a tool that gathers applicable quality indicators and ensuring its standardized use would equip assessors to appraise the quality of narratives. Steps taken for Development and Implementation of innovation:We used DeVellis' framework to develop a checklist of evidence-informed indicators for quality narratives. Two team members independently piloted the checklist using four series of narratives coming from three different sources. After each series, team members documented their agreement and achieved a consensus. We calculated frequencies of occurrence for each quality indicator as well as the interrater agreement to assess the standardized application of the checklist. Outcomes of Innovation:We identified seven quality indicators and applied them on narratives. Frequencies of quality indicators ranged from 0% to 100%. Interrater agreement ranged from 88.7% to 100% for the four series.Critical Reflection: Although we were able to achieve a standardized application of a list of quality indicators for narratives used in health sciences education, it does not exclude the fact that users would need training to be able to write good quality narratives. We also noted that some quality indicators were less frequent than others and we suggested a few reflections on this.