medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2017, Number 21

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2017; 6 (21)

High-stakes testing: Educational implications

Sánchez-Mendiola M, Delgado-Maldonado L

Language: Spanish
References: 67
Page: 52-62
PDF size: 326.62 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: High-stakes test have a long history in higher education and have contributed to the scientific development of educational assessment as a sophisticated discipline. Despite this, controversial reactions have emerged in different sectors of society and education professionals, questioning its real value and emphasizing its potential negative effects. A balanced discussion of these issues is needed, grounded in academic arguments about the subject, specifically in medical education.
Objective: To provide an overview of the educational implications of summative high-stakes testing, with emphasis on medical education.
Method: Narrative review of the literature. Relevant papers were identified in available databases of published and grey literature, about high-stakes testing in higher education at the international and national levels. The focus was on scholarly papers that reported methodology and results, emphasizing medical education assessment.
Discussion: High-stakes testing has had positive effects on education globally, although important negative effects have also been reported. There is abundant literature on the subject, although more than 95% are not formal published research papers, which makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with methodologically grounded academic arguments. The majority of studies about this theme have been published in the litigious Northamerican context, it is necessary to perform educational assessment original research in the national and local contexts, without losing the global perspective.
Conclusion: High-stakes testing have positive and negative effects on the curriculum, teaching methods and learning strategies. There is a need to use professionally and sensibly the results of educational testing, incorporating the modern interpretative concept of validity to obtain appropriate inferences of testing data.


REFERENCES

  1. Brennan RL. Perspective on the evolution and future of educationalmeasurement. En: Brennan RL, editor. EducationalMeasurement. National Council on Measurement in Educationand American Council on Education. 4.th Ed. Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers; 2006. p. 1---16.

  2. Márquez Jiménez A. Las pruebas estandarizadas en entredicho.Perf Educ. 2014;36:3---9.

  3. Nichols SL, Berliner DC. Collateral damage: How high-stakestesting corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducation Press; 2007.

  4. Cizek GJ. More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing.Educ Meas. 2001;20:19---27.

  5. Sánchez Mendiola M, Delgado Maldonado L. La certificaciónde médicos especialistas: bases conceptuales. En: SánchezMendiola M, Lifshitz Guinzberg A, Vilar Puig P, MartínezGonzález A, Varela Ruiz M, Graue Wiechers E, editores. EducaciónMédica: Teoría, Práctica. México, D.F.: Elsevier;2015.p. 395-399.

  6. Dauphinee WD. Licensure and Certification. En: Norman GR, vander Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, editors. International Handbook ofResearch in Medical Education., 7. Series: Springer InternationalHandbooks of Education; 2002. p. 835---82.

  7. American Educational Research Association, American PsychologicalAssociation and National Council on Measurementin Education, and Joint Committee on Standards forEducational and Psychological Testing. Standards for educationaland psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA;2014.

  8. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación. Criteriostécnicos para el desarrollo y uso de instrumentos de evaluacióneducativa 2014-2015. INEE, México. 2014 [consultado Ago 2016].Disponible en: http://www.inee.edu.mx

  9. Case SM, Swanson DB. Cómo construir preguntas de SelecciónMúltiple para Ciencias Básicas y Ciencias Clínicas. 3.a ed. Philadelphia,PA, USA.: National Board of Medical Examiners; 2005[consultado 1 Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://www.nbme.org/publications/item-writing-manual.html

  10. Dirección General de Administración Escolar, UNAM. Cómoingreso a la UNAM, 2016-2017, pág. 41 [consultado 1 Ago 2016].Disponible en: https://www.dgae.unam.mx/ingreso unam/

  11. Sánchez Mendiola M. El Seminario de Educación del Plan Únicode Especialidades Médicas de la Facultad de Medicina UNAM:una reflexión crítica. En: Lifshitz Guinzberg A, editor. Losretos de la Educación Médica. Ciudad de México; 2012; 1(1):135-162.

  12. Comisión Interinstitucional para la Formación de RecursosHumanos para la Salud, Secretaría de Salud, Ciudad de México.2016 [consultado 15 Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://cifrhs.salud.gob.mx/descargas/pdf/enarm caracteristicas evolucion.pdf

  13. Delgado Maldonado L, Sánchez Mendiola M. Análisis del ExamenProfesional de la Facultad de Medicina de la UNAM: Una experienciade evaluación objetiva del aprendizaje con la Teoría deRespuesta al Ítem. Inv Ed Med. 2012;1:130---9.

  14. Porras-Hernandez JD, Mora-Fol JR, Lezama-Del Valle P,Yanowsky-Reyes G, Perez-Lorenzana H, Ortega-Salgado A, et al.Assessment of the mexican board of pediatric surgery certificationsystem. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:829---35.

  15. Comité Normativo Nacional de Consejos de Especialidades Médicas,A.C. [consultado 10 Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://conacem.org.mx/

  16. Clauser BE, Margolis MJ, Case SM. Testing for licensure and certificationin the professions. En: Brennan RL, editor. EducationalMeasurement. National Council on Measurement in Educationand American Council on Education. 4.th Ed. Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers; 2006. p. 701---31.

  17. Madaus GF. The influence of testing on the curriculum. En:Tanner LN, editor. Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventhyear-book of the national society for the study of education.Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988. p. 83---121.

  18. Fickel LH. Paradox of practice: Expanding and contractingcurriculum in a high-stakes climate. En: Grant SG, editor.Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the UnitedStates. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2006.p. 75---103.

  19. Koretz DM, Linn RL, Dunbar SB, Shepard LA. The effectsof high-stakes testing on achievement: preliminary findingsabout generalization across tests. Presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association.En: Linn RL, editor. The effects of high stakes testing, annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Associationand the National Council on Measurement in Education,Chicago, April 1991 [consultado 1 Ago 2016]. Disponible en:https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10880553/The%20Effects%20of%20High-Stakes%20Testing%2023%20Dec%2002.pdf?sequence=1

  20. Kuhbandner C, Aslan A, Emmerdinger K, Murayama K. Providingextrinsic reward for test performance undermines long-termmemory acquisition. Front Psychol. 2016;7:79. Disponible en:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740952/

  21. Swanson DB, Norman GR, Linn RL. Performance-based assessment:lessons from the health professions. Educ Res. 1995;24,5-11+35.

  22. Moreno-Olivos T. Lo bueno, lo malo y lo feo: las muchas carasde la evaluación. Rev Iberoam Educ Sup. 2010;I:84---97.

  23. Sánchez Mendiola M, Delgado Maldonado L, Flores Hernández F,Leenen I, Martínez González A. Evaluación del aprendizaje. En:Sánchez Mendiola M, Lifshitz Guinzberg A, Vilar Puig P, MartínezGonzález A, Varela Ruiz M, Graue Wiechers E, editores. EducaciónMédica: teoría y práctica. Editorial Elsevier: México D.F;2015. p. 89---95. Cap. 14.

  24. Debray E, Parson G, Avila S. Internal alignment and externalpressure. En: Carnoy M, Elmore R, Siskin LS, editores. The newaccountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New York:Routledge Falmer; 2003. p. 55---85.

  25. Martone A, Sireci SG. Evaluating alignment between curriculum,assessment, and instruction. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79:1332---61.

  26. Bland C, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorehead-Rosenberg L, ZoniaS, Henry R. Curricular change in medical schools: How to succeed.Acad Med. 2000;75:575---94.

  27. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusionof innovations in service organizations: systematic reviewand recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581---629.

  28. Newble DI, Jaeger K. The effect of assessments and examinationson the learning of medical students. Med Educ.1983;17:165---71.

  29. Yeh SS. Limiting the unintended consequences of high-stakestesting. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2005;13 [consultado1 Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=coedu pub

  30. Sullivan D. A concept analysis of«high stakes testing». NurseEduc. 2014;39:72---6.

  31. Tagher CG, Robinson EM. Critical aspects of stress in a highstakestesting environment: A phenomenographical approach.J Nurs Educ. 2016;55:160---3.

  32. Durning SJ, Lubarsky S, Torre D, Dory V, Holmboe E. Considering‘‘nonlinearity’’ across the continuum in medical educationassessment: supporting theory, practice, and future researchdirections. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35:232---43.

  33. Rethans JJ, Norcini JJ, Barón-Maldonado M. The relationshipbetween competence and performance: implications for assessingpractice performance. Med Educ. 2002;36:901---9.

  34. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65 Suppl.:S63---7.

  35. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. Construct-irrelevant variance inhigh-stakes testing. Educ Meas. 2004;23:17---27.

  36. Sackett PR, Borneman MJ, Connelly BS. High stakes testing inhigher education and employment: appraising the evidence forvalidity and fairness. Am Psychol. 2008;63:215---27.

  37. Downing SM, Yudkowsky R. Introduction to Assessment in theHealth Professions. En: Downing SM, Yudkowsky, editores.Assessment in health professions education. New York, NY: Routledge;2009. p. 1---21.

  38. Martínez Rizo F. Evaluación formativa en aula y evaluación agran escala: hacia un sistema más equilibrado. Rev ElectrónInvestig Educ. 2009;11. Disponible en: http://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/231

  39. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos(OCDE). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equityin Education, OECD Publishing, Paris. 2016 [consultado 1 Ago2016]. Disponible en: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/

  40. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos(OCDE). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices forSuccessful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris. 2016 [consultado 1Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/

  41. McDaniel MA, Roediger HL 3rd, McDermott KB. Generalizingtest-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom.Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14:200---6.

  42. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test-enhanced learningin medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:959---66.

  43. Baghdady M, Carnahan H, Lam EW, Woods NN. Test-enhancedlearning and its effect on comprehension and diagnostic accuracy.Med Educ. 2014;48:181---8.

  44. Aguilar-Tamayo R, Sánchez-Mendiola M, Fortoul van der Goes T.La libertad de cátedra: ¿una libertad malentendida? Inv Ed Med.2015;4:170---4.

  45. Carter K. Do teachers understand principles for writing test?J Teach Educ. 1984;35:57---60.

  46. Downing SM. Twelve steps for effective test development.En: Downing SM, Haladyna TM, editores. Handbook of test development.Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006.p. 3---25.

  47. Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D,Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations.Acad Med. 2002;77:156---61.

  48. Popham WJ. Teaching to the Test? Educational Leadership.2001;58:16---20. Disponible en: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Teaching-to-the-Test%C2%A2.aspx

  49. Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity threats: overcoming interferencewith proposed interpretations of assessment data. MedEduc. 2004;38:327---33.

  50. Downing SM. Threats to the validity of locally developedmultiple-choice tests in medical education: constructirrelevantvariance and construct underrepresentation. AdvHealth Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7:235---41.

  51. McGaghie WC, Downing SM, Kubilius R. What is the impact ofcommercial test preparation courses on medical examinationperformance? Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:202---11.

  52. Mehrens WA. Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence?Education Policy Analysis Archives. 1998;6. Disponibleen: epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/580/703.

  53. Au W. High-Stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitativemetasynthesis. Educational Researcher. 2007;36:258---67.

  54. Apple MW. Education and power. 2.nd ed. New York: Routledge;1995.

  55. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessmentdata. Med Educ. 2003;37:830---7.

  56. Kane M. Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores.J Educ Meas. 2013;50:1---73.

  57. Mendoza Ramos A. La validez en los exámenes de altoimpacto: Un enfoque desde la lógica argumentativa. Perf Educ.2015;37:169---86.

  58. Sánchez-Mendiola M. Mi instrumento es más válido que eltuyo»: ¿Por qué seguimos usando ideas obsoletas? Inv Ed Med.2016;5:133---5.

  59. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United Sates and Canada.Washington, DC: Science and Health Publications, Inc. 1910[consultado 15 Ago 2016]. Disponible en: http://archive.carnegiefoundation.org/pdfs/elibrary/Carnegie FlexnerReport.pdf

  60. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, DuvivierR, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statementand recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. MedTeach. 2011;33:206---14.

  61. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A Review of multiplechoiceitem-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. ApplMeas Educ. 2002;15:309---34.

  62. Sánchez Mendiola M. Educación médica basada en evidencias:¿Ser o no ser? Inv Ed Med. 2012;1:82---9.

  63. Downing SM. The effects of violating standard ítem writing principleson test and students: the consequences of using flawedtest ítems on achievement examinations in medical education.Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10:133---43.

  64. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences. 1973;4:155---69.

  65. Eva KW, Bordage G, Campbell C, Galbraith R, Ginsburg S, HolmboeE, et al. Towards a program of assessment for healthprofessionals: from training into practice. Adv Health Sci EducTheory Pract. 2016;21:897---913.

  66. Hattie J. What doesn’t work in education: The politics ofdistraction. London: Pearson; 2015 [consultado 1 Ago 2016].Disponible en: http://visible-learning.org/2015/06/downloadjohn-hattie-politics-distraction/

  67. Sánchez Cerón M, del Sagrario Corte Cruz FM. Las evaluacionesestandarizadas: sus efectos en tres países latinoamericanos. RevLatinoam Estud Educ (México). 2013;43:97---124.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com