Toward a better judgment of item relevance in progress testing

Improving Undergraduate Nursing Testing Practice by Developing a Peer-Review Methodology

BACKGROUND

Nursing tests are considered a high-stakes method of evaluating students' mastery of learned concepts and a means to prepare students for the licensing examination. After observing a downward trend in nursing program graduates' NCLEX-RN pass rates, an increase in test question issues, and anticipating the NCLEX-RN changes to the NGN format in 2023, the department sought to increase test quality.

METHOD

Using shared governance, faculty mentorship, and evidence-based test practices, a testing methodology and process was created by implementing a test review committee.

RESULTS

Implementation of the test review committee demonstrated a significant improvement in the quality of tests administered, facilitated improved faculty test development, and increased student preparedness for the 2023 NGN examination by demonstrating a 100% pass rate.

CONCLUSION

Although implementing the test review committee and changing test practice required continued faculty support and mentorship, the outcome produced a standardized quality testing process that demonstrated student success. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(10):679-685.].

Written-Based Progress Testing: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Progress 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.

METHOD

The 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, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) on 2 occasions (May 22, 2018, and April 21, 2020) and included articles written in English or French and pertaining to written progress tests in higher education. Two authors screened articles for the inclusion criteria (90% agreement), then data extraction was performed by pairs of authors. Using a snowball approach, the authors also screened additional articles identified from the included reference lists. They completed a thematic analysis through an iterative process.

RESULTS

A total of 104 articles were included. The majority of progress tests used a multiple-choice and/or true-or-false question format (95, 91.3%) and were administered 4 times a year (38, 36.5%). The most documented source of validity evidence was internal consistency (38, 36.5%). Four major themes were identified: (1) barriers and challenges to the implementation of progress testing (e.g., need for additional resources); (2) established collaboration as a facilitator of progress testing implementation; (3) factors that increase the acceptance of progress testing (e.g., formative use); and (4) outcomes and consequences of progress test use (e.g., progress testing contributes to an increase in knowledge).

CONCLUSIONS

Progress testing appears to have a positive impact on learning, and there is significant validity evidence to support its use. Although progress testing is resource- and time-intensive, strategies such as collaboration with other institutions may facilitate its use.