The Use of a Dedicated Platform to Evaluate Health-Professions University Courses

  • Giovanni GaleotoEmail author
  • Raffaella Rumiati
  • Morena Sabella
  • Julita Sansoni
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 804)


The aim of the current study is to discuss a national platform for evaluating nursing education in Italy by means of a progress test and to compare digital versus paper administration of the test. In 2016, the agency updated the research design, including the domains, the methodological approach, and the tests for both Transversal Competencies (TECO-T) and Disciplinary Competencies (TECO-D). The TECO project aims to construct indicators that reflect the skills developed from the first through the third year of the university degree. For the digital study, 8516 students at 19 Italian university universities were recruited; 5975 students of degree courses in nursing took the electronic TECO, and 4326 used the paper format. Asked to evaluate their satisfaction in completing the TECO, the students found it simple, clear, and understandable, but reported difficulty in answering questions due to a lack of practicality in the paper test. The project encourages the development of shared core disciplinary contents and their compatibility with the Dublin Descriptors; allows the development of disciplinary tests (TECO-D) whose results can be used for self-assessment and inter- and intra-university comparisons; and ensures centralized management of the collection of data.


Progress test Platform Health professions 


  1. 1.
    Van der Vleuten, C.P.M., Verwijnen, G.M., Wijnen, H.F.W.: Fifteen years of experience with progress testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Med. Teacher 18, 103–109 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Heeson, P.A.W., Verwijnen, G.M.: Does problem-based learning provide other knowledge? In: Bender, W., Hiemstra, R.J., Scherpbier, A.J.J.A., Zwierstra, R.P. (eds.) Teaching and Assessing Clinical Competence. Boek Werk, Groningen, The Netherlands (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold, L., Willoughby, T.L.: The quarterly profile examination. Acad. Med. 65, 515–516 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newble, D.I., Jaeger, K.: The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med. Educ. 17, 165–171 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frederiksen, N.: The real test bias. influences of testing on teaching and learning. Am. Psychol. 39, 193–202 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman, A.C., Ricketts, C.: Choosing and designing knowledge assessments: experience at a new medical school. Med. Teach. 32(7), 578–581 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Archer, J.: State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med. Educ. 44, 101–108 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coombes, L., Ricketts, C., Freeman, A., Stratford, J.: Beyond assessment: feedback for individuals and institutions based on the progress test. Med. Teach. 32(6), 486–490 (2010). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Galeoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raffaella Rumiati
    • 2
  • Morena Sabella
    • 2
  • Julita Sansoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health“Sapienza” University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research InstitutesRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations