TY - JOUR
T1 - Collaboration on progress testing in medical schools in the Netherlands
AU - Schuwirth, Lambertus
AU - Bosman, Giel
AU - Henning, Rob
AU - Rinkel, Rico
AU - Wenink, Arnold
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Progress testing in the Netherlands was originally developed at Maastricht University. Since the late 1990s, a collaboration has started between three medical schools to jointly produce and administer the progress test. Currently, the progress test is administered to five out of eight medical schools in the Netherlands. The collaboration has led to substantial decrease in necessary resources per participating school. Also, the data provide a rich source for comparisons between schools and can be instrumental in inducing improvements to the curricula. Logistics of large-scale administrations and possible differences of views on item quality could be seen as a disadvantage. Also, it is not always easy to fit the test in the local regulatory structure, because it is only partly owned by each individual school. Important lessons for us have been that the advantages of the collaboration clearly outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, good collegial communication is needed, but this is not enough: a legal binding agreement has to be drawn up. Most importantly, such a collaboration creates a critical mass to enable multi-centre research and development projects on progress testing.
AB - Progress testing in the Netherlands was originally developed at Maastricht University. Since the late 1990s, a collaboration has started between three medical schools to jointly produce and administer the progress test. Currently, the progress test is administered to five out of eight medical schools in the Netherlands. The collaboration has led to substantial decrease in necessary resources per participating school. Also, the data provide a rich source for comparisons between schools and can be instrumental in inducing improvements to the curricula. Logistics of large-scale administrations and possible differences of views on item quality could be seen as a disadvantage. Also, it is not always easy to fit the test in the local regulatory structure, because it is only partly owned by each individual school. Important lessons for us have been that the advantages of the collaboration clearly outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, good collegial communication is needed, but this is not enough: a legal binding agreement has to be drawn up. Most importantly, such a collaboration creates a critical mass to enable multi-centre research and development projects on progress testing.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953171200&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3109/0142159X.2010.485658
DO - 10.3109/0142159X.2010.485658
M3 - Article
SN - 0142-159X
VL - 32
SP - 476
EP - 479
JO - Medical Teacher
JF - Medical Teacher
IS - 6
ER -