EUCLID : Dark Universe Probe and Microlensing planet Hunter

There is a remarkable synergy between requirements for Dark Energy probes by cosmic shear measurements and planet hunting by microlensing. Employing weak and strong gravitational lensing to trace and detect the distribution of matter on cosmic and Galactic scales, but as well as to the very small scales of exoplanets is a unique meeting point from cosmology to exoplanets. It will use gravity as the tool to explore the full range of masses not accessible by any other means. EUCLID is a 1.2m telescope with optical and IR wide field imagers and slitless spectroscopy, proposed to ESA Cosmic Vision to probe for Dark Energy, Baryonic acoustic oscillation, galaxy evolution, and an exoplanet hunt via microlensing. A 3 months microlensing program will already efficiently probe for planets down to the mass of Mars at the snow line, for free floating terrestrial or gaseous planets and habitable super Earth. A 12+ months survey would give a census on habitable Earth planets around solar like stars. This is the perfect complement to the statistics that will be provided by the KEPLER satellite, and these missions combined will provide a full census of extrasolar planets from hot, warm, habitable, frozen to free floating.Comment: 6 pages 3 figures, invited talk in Pathways towards habitable planets, Barcelona, Sept 200

Workplace-based assessment: effects of rater expertise

Traditional psychometric approaches towards assessment tend to focus exclusively on quantitative properties of assessment outcomes. This may limit more meaningful educational approaches towards workplace-based assessment (WBA). Cognition-based models of WBA argue that assessment outcomes are determined by cognitive processes by raters which are very similar to reasoning, judgment and decision making in professional domains such as medicine. The present study explores cognitive processes that underlie judgment and decision making by raters when observing performance in the clinical workplace. It specifically focuses on how differences in rating experience influence information processing by raters. Verbal protocol analysis was used to investigate how experienced and non-experienced raters select and use observational data to arrive at judgments and decisions about trainees’ performance in the clinical workplace. Differences between experienced and non-experienced raters were assessed with respect to time spent on information analysis and representation of trainee performance; performance scores; and information processing––using qualitative-based quantitative analysis of verbal data. Results showed expert-novice differences in time needed for representation of trainee performance, depending on complexity of the rating task. Experts paid more attention to situation-specific cues in the assessment context and they generated (significantly) more interpretations and fewer literal descriptions of observed behaviors. There were no significant differences in rating scores. Overall, our findings seemed to be consistent with other findings on expertise research, supporting theories underlying cognition-based models of assessment in the clinical workplace. Implications for WBA are discussed

Workplace-Based Assessment Instruments in the Health Sciences

A historical overview of the development of assessment instruments in the health sciences is presented here, with specific attention paid to workplace-based assessment instruments. Three instruments are reviewed in detail: the mini clinical evaluation exercise (mCEX), direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS), and multi-source feedback (MSF). Features common to these instruments include their authenticity, their use in assessing professional skills, and the opportunities they afford for the provision of feedback. Although almost exclusively used in graduate medical training, they are likely to play an increasingly important role in the assessment of veterinary undergraduate students in preparation for professional practice. However, the time and cost associated with implementing these instruments raises questions about their feasibility. The continued search for the holy grail of assessment instruments and the challenges relating to the need for trained assessors leads us to conclude that ultimately, the competence of health professionals should continue to be measured using several complementary instruments