Models of learning, training and progress evaluation of medical students

Evaluation of the Potential of National Sharing of a Unified Progress Test Among Colleges of Pharmacy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

With the expansion in pharmacy education in Saudi Arabia, there is a pressing need to maintain quality assurance in pharmacy programs using several tools. The progress test is a formative assessment tool that can serve to provide information to all stakeholders. This study evaluated the results of a unified progress test that was shared among 15 colleges of pharmacy.

METHODS

The progress test was composed of 100 MCQs where 30% of which cover basic pharmaceutical sciences and 70% cover pharmacy practice. The questions were collected from all the 15 colleges of pharmacy participated in the test. The test was administered online to all undergraduate students in the professional programs of these colleges.

RESULTS

The overall attendance rate was 80% from the total number of students enrolled in the participating colleges. Mean scores of students in basic pharmaceutical sciences were relatively higher than in pharmacy practice. The assessment results of the students in the unified program learning outcomes among colleges were higher in the domains of knowledge and skills compared to competence domain. There was a significant increment in the mean scores of the students as they progress through the years of the professional program. No correlation was found between the mean scores in the test and the cumulative grade point average (cGPA) of all students regardless of their level.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated growth and maintenance of the gained knowledge and skills by the students as they progress through the years of the professional program with consistency in the results among the participating colleges. Sharing a unified test was effective as a valuable tool for the colleges of pharmacy for the purposes of benchmarking and improving the curricula. In addition, it could serve to evaluate learning of students and harmonize knowledge and skills gained by students at different institutions.

Simulated training model of ureteropyelic anastomosis in laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Purpose:

To develop a model for simulated training of ureteropyelic anastomosis in laparoscopicpyeloplasty.

Methods:

Longitudinal and experimental study, with 16 participants. A synthetic instrument was produced to simulate the renal pelvis and the proximal portion of the ureter positioned on a platform within laparoscopic simulators, thereby resulting in the realistic simulation of the ureteropelvic anastomosis. A step-by-step guide was also developed for the accomplishment of the ureteropelvic anastomosis training model.

Results:

In the evaluation of all participants’ suture training, a decrease was found in the time needed to perform the anastomosis, with a median of 17.83 min in the 1^st step and 14.21 min in the last one (p = 0.01). Regarding the knots, in the 1^st step, 5% of them were considered firm, with an evolution to 30% in the last step (p = 0.011).

Conclusion:

We noticed improvement in the ability to perform the ureteropelvic anastomosis by participants with no experience with it. Therefore, even unexperienced participants can improve their skills with this training. Moreover, we observed the effectiveness of the model use, confirmed by the participants’ opinion and its validation by expert surgeons.

A systemic framework for the progress test: strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide No. 71

There has been increasing use and significance of progress testing in medical education. It is used in many ways and with several formats to reflect the variety of curricula and assessment purposes. These developments have occurred alongside a recognised sensitivity for error variance inherent in multiple choice tests from which challenges to its validity and reliability have arisen. This Guide presents a generic, systemic framework to help identify and explore improvements in the quality and defensibility of progress test data. The framework draws on the combined experience of the Dutch consortium, an individual medical school in the United Kingdom, and the bulk of the progress test literature to date. It embeds progress testing as a quality-controlled assessment tool for improving learning, teaching and the demonstration of educational standards. The paper describes strengths, highlights constraints and explores issues for improvement. These may assist in the establishment of potential or new progress testing in medical education programmes. They can also guide the evaluation and improvement of existing programmes.