Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Programmatic assessment requires labour and cost intensive activities such as feedback in a quantitative and qualitative form, a system of learner support in guiding feedback uptake and self-directed learning, and a decision-making arrangement that includes committees of experts making a holistic professional judgment while using due process measures to achieve trustworthy decisions. This can only be afforded if we redistribute the resources of assessment in a curriculum. Several strategies are suggested. One is to introduce progress testing as a replacement for costly cognitive assessment formats in modules. In addition, all assessments should be replaced by assessment formats that are maximally aligned with the learning tasks. For performance-based assessment, OSCEs should be sparsely used, while education and work-embedded assessment should be maximized as part of the routine of ongoing instruction and assessment. Information technology may support affordable feedback strategies, as well as the creation of a paper trail on performance. By making more dramatic choices in the way we allocate resources to assessment, the cost-intensive activities of programmatic assessment may be realized.
Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254–84. CrossRef
Van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Scheele F, Driessen EW, Hodges B. The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24:703–19. CrossRef
Muijtjens AM, Timmermans I, Donkers J, et al. Flexible electronic feedback using the virtues of progress testing. Med Teach. 2010;32:491–5. CrossRef
Govaerts MJB, van der Vleuten CPM. Validity in work-based assessment: expanding our horizons. Med Educ. 2013;47:1164–74. CrossRef
Ginsburg S, Eva K, Regehr G. Do in-training evaluation reports deserve their bad reputations? A study of the reliability and predictive ability of ITER scores and narrative comments. Acad Med. 2013;88:1539–44. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Lingard L. Learning from clinical work: the roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Med Educ. 2012;46:192–200. CrossRef
Driessen EW, Overeem K. Mentoring. In: Walsh K, editor. Oxford textbook of medical education. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 265–84.
Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Schuwirth L, Wass V, Vleuten C van der. Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in the context of summative assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20:229–45. CrossRef
Sargeant J, Eva KW, Armson H, et al. Features of assessment learners use to make informed self-assessments of clinical performance. Med Teach. 2011;45:636–47.
Carpenter JL. Cost analysis of objective structured clinical examinations. Acad Med. 1995;70:828–33.
Schuwirth LWT, Vleuten CPM van der. Cost-effective assessment. In: Walsh K, editor. Cost effectiveness in medical education. Oxford: Radcliffe; 2010. pp. 94–100.
Wrigley W, Vleuten CP van der, Freeman A, Muijtjens A. A systemic framework for the progress test: strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide. Med Teach. 2012;34(71):683–97. CrossRef
Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. New York: Pearson; 2011.
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–41. CrossRef
Ricketts C, Bligh J. Developing a “frequent look and rapid remediation” assessment system for a new medical school. Acad Med. 2011;86:67–71. CrossRef
Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, Schuwirth LWT, Wass V, Vleuten CPM van der. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x
Karpicke JD, Roediger HL 3rd. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008;319:966–8. CrossRef
Dannefer EF, Henson LC. The portfolio approach to competency-based assessment at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Acad Med. 2007;82:493–502. CrossRef
Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, Herman N, Adendorff HJ, van der Vleuten CP. A model of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17:39–53. CrossRef
Cohen-Schotanus J, van der Vleuten CP. A standard setting method with the best performing students as point of reference: practical and affordable. Med Teach. 2010;32:154–60. CrossRef
Cusimano MD, Cohen R, Tucker W, Murnaghan J, Kodama R, Reznick R. A comparative analysis of the costs of administration of an OSCE (objective structured clinical examination). Acad Med. 1994;69:571–6. CrossRef
Daelmans HE, Overmeer RM, van der Hem-Stokroos HH, Scherpbier AJ, Stehouwer CD, van der Vleuten CP. In-training assessment: qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Med Educ. 2006;40:51–8. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94. CrossRef
Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP, Driessen EW. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49:487–98. CrossRef
Könings KD, van Berlo J, Koopmans R, et al. Using a smartphone app and coaching group sessions to promote residents’ reflection in the workplace. Acad Med. 2016;91:365–70. CrossRef
Van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996;1:41–67. CrossRef
- On the issue of costs in programmatic assessment
Cees P. M. van der Vleuten
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum