A new framework for designing programmes of assessment

Research on assessment in medical education has strongly focused on individual measurement instruments and their psychometric quality. Without detracting from the value of this research, such an approach is not sufficient to high quality assessment of competence as a whole. A programmatic approach is advocated which presupposes criteria for designing comprehensive assessment programmes and for assuring their quality. The paucity of research with relevance to programmatic assessment, and especially its development, prompted us to embark on a research project to develop design principles for programmes of assessment. We conducted focus group interviews to explore the experiences and views of nine assessment experts concerning good practices and new ideas about theoretical and practical issues in programmes of assessment. The discussion was analysed, mapping all aspects relevant for design onto a framework, which was iteratively adjusted to fit the data until saturation was reached. The overarching framework for designing programmes of assessment consists of six assessment programme dimensions: Goals, Programme in Action, Support, Documenting, Improving and Accounting. The model described in this paper can help to frame programmes of assessment; it not only provides a common language, but also a comprehensive picture of the dimensions to be covered when formulating design principles. It helps identifying areas concerning assessment in which ample research and development has been done. But, more importantly, it also helps to detect underserved areas. A guiding principle in design of assessment programmes is fitness for purpose. High quality assessment can only be defined in terms of its goals

Regulatory assessment of the consultation competence of Family Physicians in Hong Kong

Objective: To evaluate the Consultation Skills Assessment (CSA) component of the Exit Assessment of the Higher Vocational Training Programme of the Hong Kong College of Family Physicians with particular reference to content validity and reliability. Design: An observational study in which candidates were directly observed and independently assessed by three assessors in the candidates' own practice setting during which they were expected to consult with six unselected and consecutive patients within two hours of consulting time. Subjects: Eighty-one candidates, 476 patients and 26 assessors (one external). Main outcome measures: Content validity and reliability (contributions to variance and generalisability) of the overall process. Results: Between 1997 and 2003, 81 clinical assessments were carried out. Internal assessors conducted a range of 1-19 assessments and the external assessor was present at 59 assessments (78.7%). The pass rate per CSA diet varied from 25-100%.published_or_final_versio

The reliability of in-training assessment when performance improvement is taken into account

During in-training assessment students are frequently assessed over a longer period of time and therefore it can be expected that their performance will improve. We studied whether there really is a measurable performance improvement when students are assessed over an extended period of time and how this improvement affects the reliability of the overall judgement. In-training assessment results were obtained from 104 students on rotation at our university hospital or at one of the six affiliated hospitals. Generalisability theory was used in combination with multilevel analysis to obtain reliability coefficients and to estimate the number of assessments needed for reliable overall judgement, both including and excluding performance improvement. Students’ clinical performance ratings improved significantly from a mean of 7.6 at the start to a mean of 7.8 at the end of their clerkship. When taking performance improvement into account, reliability coefficients were higher. The number of assessments needed to achieve a reliability of 0.80 or higher decreased from 17 to 11. Therefore, when studying reliability of in-training assessment, performance improvement should be considered

The missions of medical schools: the pursuit of health in the service of society

Mission statements and role documents of medical schools in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia have been examined on their Internet Web sites and categorised in purpose, content and presentation. The format and content are highly variable, but there is a common vision of three integral roles, namely, education, advancement of knowledge and service to society. Other frequent themes include tradition and historical perspective, service for designated communities, and benchmarking to accreditation standards. Differences in content reflect variable interpretation of the notion of "mission", and local or national characteristics such as institutional affiliations, the types, levels and organisation of medical education, relationships with health systems, and extent of multi-professional education. Outcomes data and measures of medical school performance referenced to the institution's stated missions are rarely encountered. Mission documents placed on the Internet are in the public domain. These Web sites and documents and linked information constitute a valuable new resource for international exchange of approaches and ideas in medical education and generally in academic medicine. Routine inclusion of outcome or performance data could help to demonstrate the community roles and social accountability of medical schools This paper proposes that partial standardisation of these Web documents could enhance their value both internally and for external readers. A generic descriptive statement template is offered

Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in the context of summative assessment

Despite calls for feedback to be incorporated in all assessments, a dichotomy exists between formative and summative assessments. When feedback is provided in a summative context, it is not always used effectively by learners. In this study we explored the reasons for this. We conducted individual interviews with 17 students who had recently received web based feedback following a summative assessment. Constant comparative analysis was conducted for recurring themes. The summative assessment culture, with a focus on avoiding failure, was a dominant and negative influence on the use of feedback. Strong emotions were prevalent throughout the period of assessment and feedback, which reinforced the focus on the need to pass, rather than excel. These affective factors were heightened by interactions with others. The influence of prior learning experiences affected expectations about achievement and the need to use feedback. The summative assessment and subsequent feedback appeared disconnected from future clinical workplace learning. Socio-cultural influences and barriers to feedback need to be understood before attempting to provide feedback after all assessments. A move away from the summative assessment culture may be needed in order to maximise the learning potential of assessments

Joining the dots: Conditional pass and programmatic assessment enhances recognition of problems with professionalism and factors hampering student progress

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Programmatic assessment that looks across a whole year may contribute to better decisions compared with those made from isolated assessments alone. The aim of this study is to describe and evaluate a programmatic system to handle student assessment results that is aligned not only with learning and remediation, but also with defensibility. The key components are standards based assessments, use of "Conditional Pass", and regular progress meetings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The new assessment system is described. The evaluation is based on years 4-6 of a 6-year medical course. The types of concerns staff had about students were clustered into themes alongside any interventions and outcomes for the students concerned. The likelihoods of passing the year according to type of problem were compared before and after phasing in of the new assessment system.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The new system was phased in over four years. In the fourth year of implementation 701 students had 3539 assessment results, of which 4.1% were Conditional Pass. More in-depth analysis for 1516 results available from 447 students revealed the odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for failure was highest for students with problems identified in more than one part of the course (18.8 (7.7-46.2) p < 0.0001) or with problems with professionalism (17.2 (9.1-33.3) p < 0.0001). The odds ratio for failure was lowest for problems with assignments (0.7 (0.1-5.2) NS). Compared with the previous system, more students failed the year under the new system on the basis of performance during the year (20 or 4.5% compared with four or 1.1% under the previous system (p < 0.01)).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The new system detects more students in difficulty and has resulted in less "failure to fail". The requirement to state conditions required to pass has contributed to a paper trail that should improve defensibility. Most importantly it has helped detect and act on some of the more difficult areas to assess such as professionalism.</p

In-training assessment using direct observation of single-patient encounters: a literature review

We reviewed the literature on instruments for work-based assessment in single clinical encounters, such as the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX), and examined differences between these instruments in characteristics and feasibility, reliability, validity and educational effect. A PubMed search of the literature published before 8 January 2009 yielded 39 articles dealing with 18 different assessment instruments. One researcher extracted data on the characteristics of the instruments and two researchers extracted data on feasibility, reliability, validity and educational effect. Instruments are predominantly formative. Feasibility is generally deemed good and assessor training occurs sparsely but is considered crucial for successful implementation. Acceptable reliability can be achieved with 10 encounters. The validity of many instruments is not investigated, but the validity of the mini-CEX and the ‘clinical evaluation exercise’ is supported by strong and significant correlations with other valid assessment instruments. The evidence from the few studies on educational effects is not very convincing. The reports on clinical assessment instruments for single work-based encounters are generally positive, but supporting evidence is sparse. Feasibility of instruments seems to be good and reliability requires a minimum of 10 encounters, but no clear conclusions emerge on other aspects. Studies on assessor and learner training and studies examining effects beyond ‘happiness data’ are badly needed

Comparison between Long-Menu and Open-Ended Questions in computerized medical assessments. A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Long-menu questions (LMQs) are viewed as an alternative method for answering open-ended questions (OEQs) in computerized assessment. So far this question type and its influence on examination scores have not been studied sufficiently. However, the increasing use of computerized assessments will also lead to an increasing use of this question type. Using a summative online key feature (KF) examination we evaluated whether LMQs can be compared with OEQs in regard to the level of difficulty, performance and response times. We also evaluated the content for its suitability for LMQs. METHODS: We randomized 146 fourth year medical students into two groups. For the purpose of this study we created 7 peer-reviewed KF-cases with a total of 25 questions. All questions had the same content in both groups, but nine questions had a different answer type. Group A answered 9 questions with an LM type, group B with an OE type. In addition to the LM answer, group A could give an OE answer if the appropriate answer was not included in the list. RESULTS: The average number of correct answers for LMQs and OEQs showed no significant difference (p = 0.93). Among all 630 LM answers only one correct term (0.32%) was not included in the list of answers. The response time for LMQs did not significantly differ from that of OEQs (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: LMQs and OEQs do not differ significantly. Compared to standard multiple-choice questions (MCQs), the response time for LMQs and OEQs is longer. This is probably due to the fact that they require active problem solving skills and more practice. LMQs correspond more suitable to Short answer questions (SAQ) then to OEQ and should only be used when the answers can be clearly phrased, using only a few, precise synonyms. LMQs can decrease cueing effects and significantly simplify the scoring in computerized assessment