↓ Skip to main content

Progress testing in the medical curriculum: students’ approaches to learning and perceived stress

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Progress testing in the medical curriculum: students’ approaches to learning and perceived stress
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0426-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Chen, Marcus Henning, Jill Yielder, Rhys Jones, Andy Wearn, Jennifer Weller

Abstract

Progress Tests (PTs) draw on a common question bank to assess all students in a programme against graduate outcomes. Theoretically PTs drive deep approaches to learning and reduce assessment-related stress. In 2013, PTs were introduced to two year groups of medical students (Years 2 and 4), whereas students in Years 3 and 5 were taking traditional high-stakes assessments. Staged introduction of PTs into our medical curriculum provided a time-limited opportunity for a comparative study. The main purpose of the current study was to compare the impact of PTs on undergraduate medical students' approaches to learning and perceived stress with that of traditional high-stakes assessments. We also aimed to investigate the associations between approaches to learning, stress and PT scores. Undergraduate medical students (N = 333 and N = 298 at Time 1 and Time 2 respectively) answered the Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) at two time points to evaluate change over time. The R-SPQ-2F generated a surface approach and a deep approach score; the PSS generated an overall perceived stress score. We found no significant differences between the two groups in approaches to learning at either time point, and no significant changes in approaches to learning over time in either cohort. Levels of stress increased significantly at the end of the year (Time 2) for students in the traditional assessment cohort, but not in the PT cohort. In the PT cohort, surface approach to learning, but not stress, was a significant negative predictor of students' PT scores. While confirming an association between surface approaches to learning and lower PT scores, we failed to demonstrate an effect of PTs on approaches to learning. However, a reduction in assessment-associated stress is an important finding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 164 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Lecturer 11 7%
Unspecified 10 6%
Other 50 30%
Unknown 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Social Sciences 28 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 11 7%
Unspecified 10 6%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,996,163
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#954
of 3,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,061
of 267,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#20
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.