2012
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula

Abstract: Progress testing as a longitudinal method allows us to better understand the development of knowledge during formal undergraduate education. The main difference between traditional and problem-based medical education seems to be provoked by the high-stakes national examination undertaken in the traditional course (the Physikum).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
32
0
7

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
32
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…A slightly different yet similar approach is chosen when researchers perform separate ANOVAs to test for group differences at each time point instead of accounting for the fact that at least considerable proportions of students have taken multiple tests and that students taking the test at some point may have been nested within learning groups [14]. Even if testing for group differences at a specific time point is legitimate from an interest in group differences at that very point in time, ignoring group nesting and the intra-group correlation that goes with it tends to result in an overestimation of the number of independent observations at that time point and this may exaggerate to some extent the statistical significance of a group difference at that time point.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A slightly different yet similar approach is chosen when researchers perform separate ANOVAs to test for group differences at each time point instead of accounting for the fact that at least considerable proportions of students have taken multiple tests and that students taking the test at some point may have been nested within learning groups [14]. Even if testing for group differences at a specific time point is legitimate from an interest in group differences at that very point in time, ignoring group nesting and the intra-group correlation that goes with it tends to result in an overestimation of the number of independent observations at that time point and this may exaggerate to some extent the statistical significance of a group difference at that time point.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The papers used as examples of studies in which a multilevel approach should or could have been used [1114] were not chosen because of a lack of quality. On the contrary, each of the papers discussed presents high-quality research published in a respectable journal.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, we used a relatively specific form of knowledge assessment. Although progress test data have been used previously in related research scenarios, they are summaries of responses to multiple‐choice items and thus reflect only a relatively specific form of assessment of medical knowledge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Progress testing has been reported to provide many benefits17 and has been used to monitor knowledge development in basic medical science courses at a medical school in Berlin 18. However, most US medical schools responding to the survey do not administer the NBME CBSE in a manner consistent with progress testing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%