Programmatic assessment and Kane's validity perspective

Testing the validity of three acute care assessment tools for assessing residents' performance during in situ simulation: the ACAT-SimSit study

BACKGROUND

The assessment of technical and nontechnical skills in emergency medicine requires reliable and usable tools. Three Acute Care Assessment Tools (ACATs) have been developed to assess medical learners in their management of cardiac arrest (ACAT-CA), coma (ACAT-coma) and acute respiratory failure (ACAT-ARF).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the reliability and usability of the three ACATs when used for in situ (bedside) simulation.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter validation study tested ACATs using interprofessional in situ simulations in seven emergency departments and invited training residents to participate in them. Each session was rated by two independent raters using ACAT. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess interrater reliability, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each ACAT. The correlation between ACATs' scores and the learners' level of performance was also assessed. Finally, a questionnaire and two focus groups were used to assess the usability of the ACATs.

RESULTS

A total of 104 in situ simulation sessions, including 85 residents, were evaluated by 37 raters. The ICC for ACAT-CA, ACAT-coma and ACAT-ARF were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.98], 0.89 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.83-0.96), respectively. The Cronbach's alphas were 0.79, 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. The ACAT-CA and ARF showed good construct validity, as third-year residents obtained significantly higher scores than first-year residents ( P  < 0.001; P  < 0.019). The raters supported the usability of the tools, even though they expressed concerns regarding the use of simulations in a summative way.

CONCLUSION

This study reported that the three ACATs showed good external validity and usability.

Twelve tips for developing effective marking schemes for constructed-response examination questions

Constructed-response questions (CRQs) require effective marking schemes to ensure that the intended learning objectives and/or professional competencies are appropriately addressed, and valid inferences regarding examinee competence are drawn from such assessments. While the educational literature on writing rubrics has proliferated in recent years, this is largely targeted at classroom use and formative purposes. There is comparatively little guidance on how to develop appropriate marking schemes for summative assessment contexts. The different purposes mean that different principles and practices apply to mark schemes for examinations. In this article, we draw on the educational literature as well as our own practical experience of working with medical and health professional educators on their questions and marking schemes to offer 12 key principles or tips for designing and implementing effective marking schemes.

Lessons From Organic Chemistry: The Case for Considering Both High Standards and Equity in Assessment

ABSTRACT

In this commentary, the authors explore the tension of balancing high performance standards in medical education with the acceptability of those standards to stakeholders (e.g., learners and patients). The authors then offer a lens through which this tension might be considered and ways forward that focus on both patient outcomes and learner needs.In examining this phenomenon, the authors argue that high performance standards are often necessary. Societal accountability is key to medical education, with the public demanding that training programs prepare physicians to provide high-quality care. Medical schools and residency programs, therefore, require rigorous standards to ensure graduates are ready to care for patients. At the same time, learners' experience is important to consider. Making sure that performance standards are acceptable to stakeholders supports the validity of assessment decisions.Equity should also be central to program evaluation and validity arguments when considering performance standards. Currently, learners across the continuum are variably prepared for the next phase in training and often face inequities in resource availability to meet high passing standards, which may lead to learner attrition. Many students who face these inequities come from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds and are essential to ensuring a diverse medical workforce to meet the needs of patients and society. When these students struggle, it contributes to the leaky pipeline of more socioeconomically and racially diverse applicants.The authors posit that 4 key factors can balance the tension between high performance standards and stakeholder acceptability: standards that are acceptable and defensible, progression that is time variable, requisite support structures that are uniquely tailored for each learner, and assessment systems that are equitably designed.

On including assessments in the calculation of teaching loads

Next to courses and seminars, tests and assessments represent the main parameters with which to describe an academic study program independent of its curricular content. Thus, the quality of education depends not only on the quality of the courses taught and how they are interconnected, but also on the quality of testing and the feedback given to students regarding their performance. Course quality should be ensured through course evaluation. The economic cost of courses is calculated based on the required teaching load. The concept of teaching load stems from the time when program planning was instructor-centered. The main variable in the rules and regulations governing university study was the number of hours per week per semester (or number of course hours). But even in today's student-centered planning, which uses ECTS credits per module as the variable, teaching loads are still used to determine the number of staff necessary to offer an academic study program. Some universities also include the assessments in the evaluation. Yet the economic costs of testing are de facto ignored almost everywhere, and this does not bode well for the quality of the assessments. Much progress would be made to improve higher education if assessments counted as part of the teaching loads and the curricular norm values. This paper identifies which requirements must be considered in order to include assessments in teaching loads.

Implementing Competence Committees on a National Scale: Design and Lessons Learned

Competence committees (CCs) are a recent innovation to improve assessment decision-making in health professions education. CCs enable a group of trained, dedicated educators to review a portfolio of observations about a learner's progress toward competence and make systematic assessment decisions. CCs are aligned with competency based medical education (CBME) and programmatic assessment. While there is an emerging literature on CCs, little has been published on their system-wide implementation. National-scale implementation of CCs is complex, owing to the culture change that underlies this shift in assessment paradigm and the logistics and skills needed to enable it. We present the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's experience implementing a national CC model, the challenges the Royal College faced, and some strategies to address them. With large scale CC implementation, managing the tension between standardization and flexibility is a fundamental issue that needs to be anticipated and addressed, with careful consideration of individual program needs, resources, and engagement of invested groups. If implementation is to take place in a wide variety of contexts, an approach that uses multiple engagement and communication strategies to allow for local adaptations is needed. Large-scale implementation of CCs, like any transformative initiative, does not occur at a single point but is an evolutionary process requiring both upfront resources and ongoing support. As such, it is important to consider embedding a plan for program evaluation at the outset. We hope these shared lessons will be of value to other educators who are considering a large-scale CBME CC implementation.

The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing

BACKGROUND

Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events.

METHODS

Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r = 0.63, p < 0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r = 0.57, p < 0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65-34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74-5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33-4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance. Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02-7.90).

CONCLUSION

Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students' learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes.

Semantic competence and prototypical verbalizations are associated with higher OSCE and global medical degree scores: a multi-theory pilot study on year 6 medical student verbalizations

OBJECTIVES

The organization of medical knowledge is reflected in language and can be studied from the viewpoints of semantics and prototype theory. The purpose of this study is to analyze student verbalizations during an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and correlate them with test scores and final medical degree (MD) scores. We hypothesize that students whose verbalizations are semantically richer and closer to the disease prototype will show better academic performance.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center study during a year 6 (Y6) high-stakes OSCE where one probing intervention was included at the end of the exam to capture students' reasoning about one of the clinical cases. Verbalizations were transcribed and coded. An assessment panel categorized verbalizations regarding their semantic value (Weak, Good, Strong). Semantic categories and prototypical elements were compared with OSCE, case-based exam and global MD scores.

RESULTS

Students with Semantic 'Strong' verbalizations displayed higher OSCE, case-based exam and MD scores, while the use of prototypical elements was associated with higher OSCE and MD scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Semantic competence and verbalizations matching the disease prototype may identify students with better organization of medical knowledge. This work provides empirical groundwork for future research on language analysis to support assessment decisions.

"A whole other competence story": exploring faculty perspectives on the process of workplace-based assessment of entrustable professional activities

The centrality of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in competency-based medical education (CBME) is predicated on the assumption that low-stakes, high-frequency workplace-based assessments used in a programmatic approach will result in accurate and defensible judgments of competence. While there have been conversations in the literature regarding the potential of this approach, only recently has the conversation begun to explore the actual experiences of clinical faculty in this process. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the process of EPA assessment for faculty in everyday practice. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with Anesthesia faculty at a Canadian academic center. Participants were asked to describe how they engage in EPA assessment in daily practice and the factors they considered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Participants in this study perceived two sources of tension in the EPA assessment process that influenced their scoring on official forms: the potential constraints of the assessment forms and the potential consequences of their assessment outcome. This was particularly salient in circumstances of uncertainty regarding the learner's level of competence. Ultimately, EPA assessment in CBME may be experienced as higher-stakes by faculty than officially recognized due to these tensions, suggesting a layer of discomfort and burden in the process that may potentially interfere with the goal of assessment for learning. Acknowledging and understanding the nature of this burden and identifying strategies to mitigate it are critical to achieving the assessment goals of CBME.

To a fault

Are first impressions misleading? This commentary explores that question by drawing on the more general cognitive psychology literature aimed at understanding when, why, and how any non-analytic reasoning process can help or hurt decision-making.

How progress evaluations are used in postgraduate education with longitudinal supervisor-trainee relationships: a mixed method study

The combination of measuring performance and giving feedback creates tension between formative and summative purposes of progress evaluations and can be challenging for supervisors. There are conflicting perspectives and evidence on the effects supervisor-trainee relationships have on assessing performance. The aim of this study was to learn how progress evaluations are used in postgraduate education with longitudinal supervisor-trainee relationships. Progress evaluations in a two-year community-pharmacy specialization program were studied with a mixed-method approach. An adapted version of the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) framework was used. Validity of the performance evaluation scores of 342 trainees was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen supervisors to investigate their response processes, the utility of the progress evaluations, and the influence of supervisor-trainee relationships. Time and CanMEDS roles affected the three-monthly progress evaluation scores. Interviews revealed that supervisors varied in their response processes. They were more committed to stimulating development than to scoring actual performance. Progress evaluations were utilized to discuss and give feedback on trainee development and to add structure to the learning process. A positive supervisor-trainee relationship was seen as the foundation for feedback and supervisors preferred the roles of educator, mentor, and coach over the role of assessor. We found that progress evaluations are a good method for directing feedback in longitudinal supervisor-trainee relationships. The reliability of scoring performance was low. We recommend progress evaluations to be independent of formal assessments in order to minimize roles-conflicts of supervisors.

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.

METHODS

First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.

RESULTS

Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.

CONCLUSION

Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

Student perspectives on programmatic assessment in a large medical programme: A critical realist analysis

BACKGROUND

Fundamental challenges exist in researching complex changes of assessment practice from traditional objective-focused 'assessments of learning' towards programmatic 'assessment for learning'. The latter emphasise both the subjective and social in collective judgements of student progress. Our context was a purposively designed programmatic assessment system implemented in the first year of a new graduate entry curriculum. We applied critical realist perspectives to unpack the underlying causes (mechanisms) that explained student experiences of programmatic assessment, to optimise assessment practice for future iterations.

METHODS

Data came from 14 in-depth focus groups (N = 112/261 students). We applied a critical realist lens drawn from Bhasker's three domains of reality (the actual, empirical and real) and Archer's concept of structure and agency to understand the student experience of programmatic assessment. Analysis involved induction (pattern identification), abduction (theoretical interpretation) and retroduction (causal explanation).

RESULTS

As a complex educational and social change, the assessment structures and culture systems within programmatic assessment provided conditions (constraints and enablements) and conditioning (acceptance or rejection of new 'non-traditional' assessment processes) for the actions of agents (students) to exercise their learning choices. The emergent underlying mechanism that most influenced students' experience of programmatic assessment was one of balancing the complex relationships between learner agency, assessment structures and the cultural system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study adds to debates on programmatic assessment by emphasising how the achievement of balance between learner agency, structure and culture suggests strategies to underpin sustained changes (elaboration) in assessment practice. These include; faculty and student learning development to promote collective reflexivity and agency, optimising assessment structures by enhancing integration of theory with practice, and changing learning culture by both enhancing existing and developing new social structures between faculty and the student body to gain acceptance and trust related to the new norms, beliefs and behaviours in assessing for and of learning.

From Traditional to Programmatic Assessment in Three (Not So) Easy Steps

Programmatic assessment (PA) has strong theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings, but its practical implementation brings a number of challenges—particularly in traditional university settings involving large cohort sizes. This paper presents a detailed case report of an in-progress programmatic assessment implementation involving a decade of assessment innovation occurring in three significant and transformative steps. The starting position and subsequent changes represented in each step are reflected against the framework of established principles and implementation themes of PA. This case report emphasises the importance of ongoing innovation and evaluative research, the advantage of a dedicated team with a cohesive plan, and the fundamental necessity of electronic data collection. It also highlights the challenge of traditional university cultures, the potential advantage of a major pandemic disruption, and the necessity for curriculum renewal to support significant assessment change. Our PA implementation began with a plan to improve the learning potential of individual assessments and over the subsequent decade expanded to encompass a cohesive and course wide assessment program involving meaningful aggregation of assessment data. In our context (large cohort sizes and university-wide assessment policy) regular progress review meetings and progress decisions based on aggregated qualitative and quantitative data (rather than assessment format) remain local challenges.

Validity evidence for summative performance evaluations in postgraduate community pharmacy education

INTRODUCTION

Workplace-based assessment of competencies is complex. In this study, the validity of summative performance evaluations (SPEs) made by supervisors in a two-year longitudinal supervisor-trainee relationship was investigated in a postgraduate community pharmacy specialization program in the Netherlands. The construct of competence was based on an adapted version of the 2005 Canadian Medical Education Directive for Specialists (CanMEDS) framework.

METHODS

The study had a case study design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The year 1 and year 2 SPE scores of 342 trainees were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and generalizability theory. Semi-structured interviews were held with 15 supervisors and the program director to analyze the inferences they made and the impact of SPE scores on the decision-making process.

RESULTS

A good model fit was found for the adapted CanMEDS based seven-factor construct. The reliability/precision of the SPE measurements could not be completely isolated, as every trainee was trained in one pharmacy and evaluated by one supervisor. Qualitative analysis revealed that supervisors varied in their standards for scoring competencies. Some supervisors were reluctant to fail trainees. The competency scores had little impact on the high-stakes decision made by the program director.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted CanMEDS competency framework provided a valid structure to measure competence. The reliability/precision of SPE measurements could not be established and the SPE measurements provided limited input for the decision-making process. Indications of a shadow assessment system in the pharmacies need further investigation.

Shaping the right conditions in programmatic assessment: how quality of narrative information affects the quality of high-stakes decision-making

BACKGROUND

Programmatic assessment is increasingly being implemented within competency-based health professions education. In this approach a multitude of low-stakes assessment activities are aggregated into a holistic high-stakes decision on the student's performance. High-stakes decisions need to be of high quality. Part of this quality is whether an examiner perceives saturation of information when making a holistic decision. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of narrative information in perceiving saturation of information during the interpretative process of high-stakes decision-making.

METHODS

In this mixed-method intervention study the quality of the recorded narrative information was manipulated within multiple portfolios (i.e., feedback and reflection) to investigate its influence on 1) the perception of saturation of information and 2) the examiner's interpretative approach in making a high-stakes decision. Data were collected through surveys, screen recordings of the portfolio assessments, and semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics and template analysis were applied to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The examiners perceived less frequently saturation of information in the portfolios with low quality of narrative feedback. Additionally, they mentioned consistency of information as a factor that influenced their perception of saturation of information. Even though in general they had their idiosyncratic approach to assessing a portfolio, variations were present caused by certain triggers, such as noticeable deviations in the student's performance and quality of narrative feedback.

CONCLUSION

The perception of saturation of information seemed to be influenced by the quality of the narrative feedback and, to a lesser extent, by the quality of reflection. These results emphasize the importance of high-quality narrative feedback in making robust decisions within portfolios that are expected to be more difficult to assess. Furthermore, within these "difficult" portfolios, examiners adapted their interpretative process reacting on the intervention and other triggers by means of an iterative and responsive approach.

Too hot to handle? Assessing the validity and reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine "Hot Case" examination

The College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand is responsible for credentialling trainees for specialist practice in intensive care medicine for the safety of patients and the community. This involves defining trainees' performance standards and testing trainees against those standards to ensure safe practice. The second part examination performed towards the end of the training program is a high-stakes assessment. The two clinical "Hot Cases" performed in the examination have a low pass rate, with most candidates failing at least one of the cases. There is increasing expectation for medical specialist training colleges to provide fair and transparent assessment processes to enable defensible decisions regarding trainee progression. Examinations are a surrogate marker of clinical performance with advantages, disadvantages and inevitable compromises. This article evaluates the Hot Case examination using Kane's validity framework and van der Vleuten's utility equation, and identifies issues with validity and reliability which could be managed through an ongoing improvement process.

Advancing the assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions: Definitional and methodologic recommendations

The importance of clinical reasoning in patient care is well-recognized across all health professions. Validity evidence supporting high quality clinical reasoning assessment is essential to ensure health professional schools are graduating learners competent in this domain. However, through the course of a large scoping review, we encountered inconsistent terminology for clinical reasoning and inconsistent reporting of methodology, reflecting a somewhat fractured body of literature on clinical reasoning assessment. These inconsistencies impeded our ability to synthesize across studies and appropriately compare assessment tools. More specifically, we encountered: 1) a wide array of clinical reasoning-like terms that were rarely defined or informed by a conceptual framework, 2) limited details of assessment methodology, and 3) inconsistent reporting of the steps taken to establish validity evidence for clinical reasoning assessments. Consolidating our experience in conducting this review, we provide recommendations on key definitional and methodologic elements to better support the development, description, study, and reporting of clinical reasoning assessments.

Changing Assessment Scenarios: Lessons for Changing Practice

Assessment is a process that includes ascertainment of improvement in the performance of students over time, motivation of students to study, evaluation of teaching methods, and ranking of student capabilities. It is an important component of the educational process influencing student learning. Although we have embarked on a new curricular model, assessment has remained largely ignored despite being the hallmark of competency-based education. During the earlier stages, the assessment was considered akin to "measurement," believing that competence is "generic, fixed and transferable across content," could be measured quantitatively and can be expressed as a single score. The objective assessment was the norm and subjective tools were considered unreliable and biased. It was soon realized that "competence is specific and nontransferable," mandating the use of multiple assessment tools across multiple content areas using multiple assessors. A paradigm change through "programmatic assessment" only occurred with the understanding that competence is "dynamic, incremental and contextual." Here, information about the students' competence and progress is gathered continually over time, analysed and supplemented with purposefully collected additional information when needed, using carefully selected combination of tools and assessor expertise, leading to an authentic, observation-driven, institutional assessment system. In the conduct of any performance assessment, the assessor remains an important part of the process, therefore making assessor training indispensable. In this paper, we look at the changing paradigms of our understanding of clinical competence, corresponding global changes in assessment and then try to make out a case for adopting the prevailing trends in the assessment of clinical competence.

It does not have to be either or! Assessing competence in medicine should be a continuum between an analytic and a holistic approach

Assessing competence is a tremendous challenge in medical education. There are two contrasting approaches in competence assessment: an analytic approach that aims to precisely measure observable constituents and facets of competence and a holistic approach that focuses on a comprehensive assessment of competences in complex real situations reflecting actual performance. We would like to contribute to the existing discourse about medical competence and its assessment by proposing an approach that can provide orientation for the development of competence-based assessment concepts in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. The approach follows Kane's framework of an "argument-based approach" to validity and is based on insights into task complexity, testing and learning theories as well as the importance of the learning environment. It describes a continuum from analytic to holistic approaches to assess the constituents and facets of competence to performance. We conclude that the complexity of a task should determine the selection of the assessment and suggest to use this approach to reorganize and adapt competence assessment.

Exploring complexities in the reform of assessment practice: a critical realist perspective

Although the principles behind assessment for and as learning are well-established, there can be a struggle when reforming traditional assessment of learning to a program which encompasses assessment for and as learning. When introducing and reporting reforms, tensions in faculty may arise because of differing beliefs about the relationship between assessment and learning and the rules for the validity of assessments. Traditional systems of assessment of learning privilege objective, structured quantification of learners' performances, and are done to the students. Newer systems of assessment promote assessment for learning, emphasise subjectivity, collate data from multiple sources, emphasise narrative-rich feedback to promote learner agency, and are done with the students. This contrast has implications for implementation and evaluative research. Research of assessment which is done to students typically asks, "what works", whereas assessment that is done with the students focuses on more complex questions such as "what works, for whom, in which context, and why?" We applied such a critical realist perspective drawing on the interplay between structure and agency, and a systems approach to explore what theory says about introducing programmatic assessment in the context of pre-existing traditional approaches. Using a reflective technique, the internal conversation, we developed four factors that can assist educators considering major change to assessment practice in their own contexts. These include enabling positive learner agency and engagement; establishing argument-based validity frameworks; designing purposeful and eclectic evidence-based assessment tasks; and developing a shared narrative that promotes reflexivity in appreciating the complex relationships between assessment and learning.

Medical students' perception of simulation-based assessment in emergency and paediatric medicine: a focus group study

BACKGROUND

Although simulation-based assessment (SBA) is being implemented in numerous medical education systems, it is still rarely used for undergraduate medical students in France. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) will be integrated into the national medical curriculum in 2021. In 2016 and 2017, we created a mannequin SBA to validate medical students' technical and psychometric skills during their emergency medicine and paediatric placements. The aim of our study was to determine medical students' perceptions of SBA.

METHODS

We followed the grounded theory framework to conduct a qualitative study. A total of 215 students participated in either a paediatric or an emergency medicine simulation-based course with a final assessment. Among the 215 participants, we randomly selected forty students to constitute the focus groups. In the end, 30 students were interviewed. Data were coded and analysed by two independent investigators within the activity theory framework.

RESULTS

The analyses found four consensual themes. First, the students perceived that success in the SBA provided them with self-confidence and willingness to participate in their hospital placements (1). They considered SBA to have high face validity (2), and they reported changes in their practice after its implementation (3). Nevertheless, they found that SBA did not help with their final high-stakes assessments (4). They discussed three other themes without reaching consensus: stress, equity, and the structure of SBA. After an analysis with activity theory, we found that students' perceptions of SBA underlined the contradictions between two systems of training: hospital and medical. We hypothesise that a specific role and place for SBA should be defined between these two activity systems.

CONCLUSION

The students perceived that SBA would increase self-confidence in their hospital placements and emphasise the general skills required in their future professional environment. However, they also reported that the assessment method might be biased and stressful. Our results concerning a preimplementation mannequin SBA and OSCE could provide valuable insight for new programme design and aid in improving existing programmes. Indeed, SBA seems to have a role and place between hospital placements and medical schools.

Ottawa 2020 consensus statements for programmatic assessment - 2. Implementation and practice

INTRODUCTION

Programmatic assessment is a longitudinal, developmental approach that fosters and harnesses the learning function of assessment. Yet the implementation, a critical step to translate theory into practice, can be challenging. As part of the Ottawa 2020 consensus statement on programmatic assessment, we sought to provide descriptions of the implementation of the 12 principles of programmatic assessment and to gain insight into enablers and barriers across different institutions and contexts.

METHODS

After the 2020 Ottawa conference, we surveyed 15 Health Profession Education programmes from six different countries about the implementation of the 12 principles of programmatic assessment. Survey responses were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A wide range of implementations were reported although the principles remained, for the most part, faithful to the original enunciation and rationale. Enablers included strong leadership support, ongoing faculty development, providing students with clear expectations about assessment, simultaneous curriculum renewal and organisational commitment to change. Most barriers were related to the need for a paradigm shift in the culture of assessment. Descriptions of implementations in relation to the theoretical principles, across multiple educational contexts, coupled with explanations of enablers and barriers, provided new insights and a clearer understanding of the strategic and operational considerations in the implementation of programmatic assessment. Future research is needed to further explore how contextual and cultural factors affect implementation.

A philosophical history of programmatic assessment: tracing shifting configurations

Programmatic assessment is now well entrenched in medical education, allowing us to reflect on when it first emerged and how it evolved into the form we know today. Drawing upon the intellectual tradition of historical epistemology, we provide a philosophically-oriented historiographical study of programmatic assessment. Our goal is to trace its relatively short historical trajectory by describing shifting configurations in its scene of inquiry-focusing on questions, practices, and philosophical presuppositions. We identify three historical phases: emergence, evolution and entrenchment. For each, we describe the configurations of the scene; examine underlying philosophical presuppositions driving changes; and detail upshots in assessment practice. We find that programmatic assessment emerged in response to positivist 'turmoil' prior to 2005, driven by utility considerations and implicit pragmatist undertones. Once introduced, it evolved with notions of diversity and learning being underscored, and a constructivist ontology developing at its core. More recently, programmatic assessment has become entrenched as its own sub-discipline. Rich narratives have been emphasised, but philosophical underpinnings have been blurred. We hope to shed new light on current assessment practices in the medical education community by interrogating the history of programmatic assessment from this philosophical vantage point. Making philosophical presuppositions explicit highlights the perspectival nature of aspects of programmatic assessment, and suggest reasons for perceived benefits as well as potential tensions, contradictions and vulnerabilities in the approach today. We conclude by offering some reflections on important points to emerge from our historical study, and suggest 'what next' for programmatic assessment in light of this endeavour.

Empirical analysis comparing the tele-objective structured clinical examination (teleOSCE) and the in-person assessment in Australia

PURPOSE

It aimed to compare the use of the tele objective structured clinical examination (teleOSCE) with in-person assessment in high-stakes clinical examination so as to determine the impact of the teleOSCE on the assessment undertaken. Discussion follows regarding what skills and domains can effectively be assessed in a teleOSCE.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective observational analysis. It compares the results achieved by final year medical students in their clinical examination, assessed using the teleOSCE in 2020 (n=285), with those who were examined using the traditional in-person format in 2019 (n=280). The study was undertaken at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

RESULTS

In the domain of physical examination, students in 2020 scored 0.277 points higher than those in 2019 (mean difference -0.277, P<0.001, effect size 0.332). Across all other domains, there was no significant difference in mean scores between 2019 and 2020.

CONCLUSION

The teleOSCE does not negatively impact assessment in clinical examination in all domains except physical examination. If the teleOSCE is the future of clinical skills examination, assessment of physical examination will require concomitant workplace-based assessment.

Identifying Core Components of EPA Implementation: A Path to Knowing if a Complex Intervention Is Being Implemented as Intended

PURPOSE

Competency-based assessment, using entrustable professional activities (EPAs), is rapidly being implemented worldwide without sufficient agreement on the essential elements of EPA-based assessment. The rapidity of implementation has left little time to understand what works in what circumstances and why or why not. The result is the attempted execution of a complex service intervention without a shared mental model for features needed to remain true to implementing an EPA assessment framework as intended. The purpose of this study was to identify the essential core components necessary to maintain integrity in the implementation of this intended intervention.

METHOD

A formal consensus-building technique, the Delphi process, was used to identify core components for implementing an EPA-based assessment framework. Twelve EPA experts from the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands participated in this process in February and March 2020. In each Delphi round, participants rated possible core components on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 reflecting the worst fit and 6 the best fit for EPA-based assessment implementation. Predetermined automatic inclusion and exclusion criteria for candidate core components were set at ≥ 80% of participants assigning a value of 5 or 6 and ≥ 80% assigning a value of 1 or 2, respectively.

RESULTS

After 3 rounds, participants prioritized 10 of 19 candidate core components for inclusion: performance prediction, shared local mental model, workplace assessment, high-stakes entrustment decisions, outcomes based, value of the collective, informed clinical competency committee members, construct alignment, qualitative data, and entrustment decision consequences. The study closed after 3 rounds on the basis of the rankings and comments.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the core components identified in this study advances efforts to implement an EPA assessment framework intervention as intended, which mitigates the likelihood of making an incorrect judgment that the intervention demonstrates negative results.

Competency-Based Assessment in Psychiatric Education: A Systems Approach

Medical education programs are failing to meet the health needs of patients and communities. Misalignments exist on multiple levels, including content (what trainees learn), pedagogy (how trainees learn), and culture (why trainees learn). To address these challenges effectively, competency-based assessment (CBA) for psychiatric medical education must simultaneously produce life-long learners who can self-regulate their own growth and trustworthy processes that determine and accelerate readiness for independent practice. The key to effectively doing so is situating assessment within a carefully designed system with several, critical, interacting components: workplace-based assessment, ongoing faculty development, learning analytics, longitudinal coaching, and fit-for-purpose clinical competency committees.

Development and evaluation of a spiral model of assessing EBM competency using OSCEs in undergraduate medical education

BACKGROUND

Medical students often struggle to understand the relevance of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) to their clinical practice, yet it is a competence that all students must develop prior to graduation. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a valued assessment tool to assess critical components of EBM competency, particularly different levels of mastery as they progress through the course. This study developed and evaluated EBM based OSCE stations with an aim to establish a spiral approach for EBM OSCE stations for undergraduate medical students.

METHODS

OSCE stations were developed with increasingly complex EBM tasks. OSCE stations were classified according to the classification rubric for EBP assessment tools (CREATE) framework and mapped against the recently published core competencies for evidence-based practice (EBP). Performance data evaluation was undertaken using Classical Test Theory analysing mean scores, pass rates, and station item total correlation (ITC) using SPSS.

RESULTS

Six EBM based OSCE stations assessing various stages of EBM were created for use in high stakes summative OSCEs for different year groups across the undergraduate medical degree. All OSCE stations, except for one, had excellent correlation coefficients and hence a high reliability, ranging from 0.21-0.49. The domain mean score ranged from 13.33 to 16.83 out of 20. High reliability was demonstrated for the each of the summative OSCE circuits (Cronbach's alpha = 0.67-0.85). In the CREATE framework these stations assessed knowledge, skills, and behaviour of medical students in asking, searching, appraising, and integrating evidence in practice. The OSCE stations were useful in assessing six core evidence-based practice competencies, which are meant to be practiced with exercises. A spiral model of OSCEs of increasing complexity was proposed to assess EBM competency as students progressed through the MBChB course.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the OSCEs is a feasible method of authentically assessing leaner EBM performance and behaviour in a high stakes assessment setting. Use of valid and reliable EBM-based OSCE stations provide evidence for continued development of a hierarchy of assessing scaffolded learning and mastery of EBM competency. Further work is needed to assess their predictive validity.

When Feedback Backfires: Influences of Negative Discrepancies Between Physicians' Self and Assessors' Scores on Their Subsequent Multisource Feedback Ratings

INTRODUCTION

With multisource feedback (MSF) physicians might overrate their own performance compared with scores received from assessors. However, there is limited insight into how perceived divergent feedback affects physicians' subsequent performance scores.

METHODS

During 2012 to 2018, 103 physicians were evaluated twice by 684 peers, 242 residents, 999 coworkers, and themselves in three MSF performance domains. Mixed-effect models quantified associations between the outcome variable "score changes" between first and second MSF evaluations, and the explanatory variable "negative discrepancy score" (number of items that physicians rated themselves higher compared with their assessors' scores) at the first MSF evaluation. Whether associations differed across assessor groups and across a physician's years of experience as a doctor was analyzed too.

RESULTS

Forty-nine percent of physicians improved their total MSF score at the second evaluation, as assessed by others. Number of negative discrepancies was negatively associated with score changes in domains "organization and (self)management" (b = -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to -0.02; SE = 0.004) and "patient-centeredness" (b = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.03 to -0.02; SE = 0.004). For "professional attitude," only negative associations between score changes and negative discrepancies existed for physicians with more than 6-year experience (b6-10yearsofexperience = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.003; SE = 0.01; b16-20yearsofexperience = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.004; SE = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

The extent of performance improvement was less for physicians confronted with negative discrepancies. Performance scores actually declined when physicians overrated themselves on more than half of the feedback items. PA score changes of more experienced physicians confronted with negative discrepancies and were affected more adversely. These physicians might have discounted feedback due to having more confidence in own performance. Future work should investigate how MSF could improve physicians' performance taking into account physicians' confidence.

Performance assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the 2020 Ottawa Conference

INTRODUCTION

In 2011 the Consensus Statement on Performance Assessment was published in Medical Teacher. That paper was commissioned by AMEE (Association for Medical Education in Europe) as part of the series of Consensus Statements following the 2010 Ottawa Conference. In 2019, it was recommended that a working group be reconvened to review and consider developments in performance assessment since the 2011 publication.

METHODS

Following review of the original recommendations in the 2011 paper and shifts in the field across the past 10 years, the group identified areas of consensus and yet to be resolved issues for performance assessment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This paper addresses developments in performance assessment since 2011, reiterates relevant aspects of the 2011 paper, and summarises contemporary best practice recommendations for OSCEs and WBAs, fit-for-purpose methods for performance assessment in the health professions.

A history of assessment in medical education

The way quality of assessment has been perceived and assured has changed considerably in the recent 5 decades. Originally, assessment was mainly seen as a measurement problem with the aim to tell people apart, the competent from the not competent. Logically, reproducibility or reliability and construct validity were seen as necessary and sufficient for assessment quality and the role of human judgement was minimised. Later, assessment moved back into the authentic workplace with various workplace-based assessment (WBA) methods. Although originally approached from the same measurement framework, WBA and other assessments gradually became assessment processes that included or embraced human judgement but based on good support and assessment expertise. Currently, assessment is treated as a whole system problem in which competence is evaluated from an integrated rather than a reductionist perspective. Current research therefore focuses on how to support and improve human judgement, how to triangulate assessment information meaningfully and how to construct fairness, credibility and defensibility from a systems perspective. But, given the rapid changes in society, education and healthcare, yet another evolution in our thinking about good assessment is likely to lurk around the corner.

Shining a spotlight on scoring in the OSCE: Checklists and item weighting

Introduction: There has been a long-running debate about the validity of item-based checklist scoring of performance assessments like OSCEs. In recent years, the conception of a checklist has developed from its dichotomous inception into a more 'key-features' and/or chunked approach, where 'items' have the potential to become weighted differently, but the literature does not always reflect these broader conceptions.Methods: We consider theoretical, design and (clinically trained) assessor issues related to differential item weighting in checklist scoring of OSCEs stations. Using empirical evidence, this work also compares candidate decisions and psychometric quality of different item-weighting approaches (i.e. a simple 'unweighted' scheme versus a differentially weighted one).Results: The impact of different weighting schemes affect approximately 30% of the key borderline group of candidates, and 3% of candidates overall. We also find that measures of overall assessment quality are a little better under the differentially weighted scoring system.Discussion and conclusion: Differentially weighted modern checklists can contribute to valid assessment outcomes, and bring a range of additional benefits to the assessment. Judgment about weighting of particular items should be considered a key design consideration during station development and must align to clinical assessor expectations of the relative importance of sub-tasks.

Perceived educational impact of the medical student long case: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The long case is a traditional method of clinical assessment which has fallen out of favour in certain contexts, primarily due to psychometric concerns. This study explored the long case's educational impact, an aspect which has been neglected in previous research.

METHODS

Three focus groups of medical students (20 in total) and semi-structured interviews of six examiners were conducted. Cook and Lineberry's framework for exploring educational impact was used as a sensitising tool during thematic analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Participants described the long case and its scoring as having influence on student learning. Engaging in the activity of a long case had an essential role in fostering students' clinical skills and served as a powerful driving force for them to spend time with patients. The long case was seen as authentic, and the only assessment to promote a holistic approach to patients. Students had concerns about inter-case variability, but there was general consensus that the long case was valuable, with allocation of marks being an important motivator for students.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a unique focus on the traditional long case's educational consequences; the extent of its positive impact would support its place within a program of assessment.

Competency-based education calls for programmatic assessment: But what does this look like in practice?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Programmatic assessment has been identified as a system-oriented approach to achieving the multiple purposes for assessment within Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME, i.e., formative, summative, and program improvement). While there are well-established principles for designing and evaluating programs of assessment, few studies illustrate and critically interpret, what a system of programmatic assessment looks like in practice. This study aims to use systems thinking and the 'two communities' metaphor to interpret a model of programmatic assessment and to identify challenges and opportunities with operationalization.

METHOD

An interpretive case study was used to investigate how programmatic assessment is being operationalized within one competency-based residency program at a Canadian university. Qualitative data were collected from residents, faculty, and program leadership via semi-structured group and individual interviews conducted at nine months post-CBME implementation. Data were analyzed using a combination of data-based inductive analysis and theory-derived deductive analysis.

RESULTS

In this model, Academic Advisors had a central role in brokering assessment data between communities responsible for producing and using residents' performance information for decision making (i.e., formative, summative/evaluative, and program improvement). As system intermediaries, Academic Advisors were in a privileged position to see how the parts of the assessment system contributed to the functioning of the whole and could identify which system components were not functioning as intended. Challenges were identified with the documentation of residents' performance information (i.e., system inputs); use of low-stakes formative assessments to inform high-stakes evaluative judgments about the achievement of competence standards; and gaps in feedback mechanisms for closing learning loops.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this research suggest that program stakeholders can benefit from a systems perspective regarding how their assessment practices contribute to the efficacy of the system as a whole. Academic Advisors are well positioned to support educational development efforts focused on overcoming challenges with operationalizing programmatic assessment.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of a new observation rating tool and a post encounter rating tool for the assessment of clinical reasoning skills of medical students during their internal medicine clerkship: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Systematic assessment of clinical reasoning skills of medical students in clinical practice is very difficult. This is partly caused by the lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying the process of clinical reasoning.

METHODS

We previously developed an observation tool to assess the clinical reasoning skills of medical students during clinical practice. This observation tool consists of an 11-item observation rating form (ORT). In the present study we verified the validity, reliability and feasibility of this tool and of an already existing post-encounter rating tool (PERT) in clinical practice among medical students during the internal medicine clerkship.

RESULTS

Six raters each assessed the same 15 student-patient encounters. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alfa) for the (ORT) was 0.87 (0.71-0.84) and the 5-item (PERT) was 0.81 (0.71-0.87). The intraclass-correlation coefficient for single measurements was poor for both the ORT; 0.32 (p < 0.001) as well as the PERT; 0.36 (p < 0.001). The Generalizability study (G-study) and decision study (D-study) showed that 6 raters are required to achieve a G-coefficient of > 0.7 for the ORT and 7 raters for the PERT. The largest sources of variance are the interaction between raters and students. There was a consistent correlation between the ORT and PERT of 0.53 (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The ORT and PERT are both feasible, valid and reliable instruments to assess students' clinical reasoning skills in clinical practice.

It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint: Rapid Evaluation of Competency-Based Medical Education Program Implementation

PURPOSE

Despite the broad endorsement of competency-based medical education (CBME), myriad difficulties have arisen in program implementation. The authors sought to evaluate the fidelity of implementation and identify early outcomes of CBME implementation using Rapid Evaluation to facilitate transformative change.

METHOD

Case-study methodology was used to explore the lived experience of implementing CBME in the emergency medicine postgraduate program at Queen's University, Canada, using iterative cycles of Rapid Evaluation in 2017-2018. After the intended implementation was explicitly described, stakeholder focus groups and interviews were conducted at 3 and 9 months post-implementation to evaluate the fidelity of implementation and early outcomes. Analyses were abductive, using the CBME core components framework and data-driven approaches to understand stakeholders' experiences.

RESULTS

In comparing planned with enacted implementation, important themes emerged with resultant opportunities for adaption. For example, lack of a shared mental model resulted in frontline difficulty with assessment and feedback and a concern that the granularity of competency-focused assessment may result in "missing the forest for the trees," prompting the return of global assessment. Resident engagement in personal learning plans was not uniformly adopted, and learning experiences tailored to residents' needs were slow to follow.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid Evaluation provided critical insights into the successes and challenges of operationalizing CBME. Implementing the practical components of CBME was perceived as a sprint, while realizing the principles of CBME and changing culture in postgraduate training was a marathon requiring sustained effort in the form of frequent evaluation and continuous faculty and resident development.

Developing an integrated approach to the assessment of student nurse competence using the Total Client Care (TCC) assessment tool

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of an integrated assessment of competence using the Total Client Care (TCC) assessment tool within an undergraduate Nursing course. The Total Client Care Assessment Tool aims to assess multiple competencies in an integrated way thereby mirroring the way in which registered nurses are expected to practice. TCC is a tool designed to assess the student's ability to provide holistic care to a client over a specified period of time. TCC measures the student's performance around four constructs, these are: Communication, Planning and Responding, Care Delivery and Assessing and Evaluating. G-theory analysis revealed satisfactory levels of global reliability on single use G co-efficient 0.90 although this dropped to 0.76 when used on eight occasions to assess the same students over a two-year period. Analysis of variance revealed that students and assessment occasions accounted for most of the variance. The TCC assessment tool is useful as it provides data about the student's performance when providing actual care. When used as part of a wider system of assessment involving triangulation of evidence from a number of sources the tool can support mentor judgements about the achievement of competence.

Shadow systems in assessment: how supervisors make progress decisions in practice

Medical educators are tasked with decisions on trainee progression and credentialing for independent clinical practice, which requires robust evidence from workplace-based assessment. It is unclear how the current promotion of workplace-based assessment as a pedagogical approach to promote learning has impacted this use of assessments for decision-making; meeting both these purposes may present unforeseen challenges. In this study we explored how supervisors make decisions on trainee progress in practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 supervisors of postgraduate anesthesia training across Australia and New Zealand and undertook thematic analysis of the transcripts. Supervisors looked beyond the formal assessment portfolio when making performance decisions. They instead used assessment 'shadow systems' based on their own observation and confidential judgements from trusted colleagues. Supervisors' decision making involved expert judgement of the perceived salient aspects of performance and the standard to be attained while making allowances for the opportunities and constraints of the local learning environment. Supervisors found making progress decisions an emotional burden. When faced with difficult decisions, they found ways to share the responsibility and balance the potential consequences for the trainee with the need to protect their patients. Viewed through the lens of community of practice theory, the development of assessment 'shadow systems' indicates a lack of alignment between local workplace assessment practices and the prescribed programmatic assessment approach to high-stakes progress decisions. Avenues for improvement include cooperative development of formal assessment processes to better meet local needs or incorporating the information in 'shadow systems' into formal assessment processes.

Exploring Validity Evidence Associated With Questionnaire-Based Tools for Assessing the Professional Performance of Physicians: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To collect and examine-using an argument-based validity approach-validity evidence of questionnaire-based tools used to assess physicians' clinical, teaching, and research performance.

METHOD

In October 2016, the authors conducted a systematic search of the literature seeking articles about questionnaire-based tools for assessing physicians' professional performance published from inception to October 2016. They included studies reporting on the validity evidence of tools used to assess physicians' clinical, teaching, and research performance. Using Kane's validity framework, they conducted data extraction based on four inferences in the validity argument: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications.

RESULTS

They included 46 articles on 15 tools assessing clinical performance and 72 articles on 38 tools assessing teaching performance. They found no studies on research performance tools. Only 12 of the tools (23%) gathered evidence on all four components of Kane's validity argument. Validity evidence focused mostly on generalization and extrapolation inferences. Scoring evidence showed mixed results. Evidence on implications was generally missing.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the argument-based approach to validity, not all questionnaire-based tools seem to support their intended use. Evidence concerning implications of questionnaire-based tools is mostly lacking, thus weakening the argument to use these tools for formative and, especially, for summative assessments of physicians' clinical and teaching performance. More research on implications is needed to strengthen the argument and to provide support for decisions based on these tools, particularly for high-stakes, summative decisions. To meaningfully assess academic physicians in their tripartite role as doctor, teacher, and researcher, additional assessment tools are needed.

The Clinical Learning Environment and Workplace-Based Assessment: Frameworks, Strategies, and Implementation

This article provides an overview of the role played by the clinical learning environment in providing opportunities for assessment of trainee performance and how those assessments can guide learning. It reviews the importance of competency models as frameworks to facilitate the creation of a shared mental model of what is to be learned between learners and supervisors. In addition, it discusses how assessment can be used to drive mastery learning as well as the components necessary for a program of assessment.

Validity Evidence for the Neuro-Endoscopic Ventriculostomy Assessment Tool (NEVAT)

BACKGROUND

Growing demand for transparent and standardized methods for evaluating surgical competence prompted the construction of the Neuro-Endoscopic Ventriculostomy Assessment Tool (NEVAT).

OBJECTIVE

To provide validity evidence of the NEVAT by reporting on the tool's internal structure and its relationship with surgical expertise during simulation-based training.

METHODS

The NEVAT was used to assess performance of trainees and faculty at an international neuroendoscopy workshop. All participants performed an endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) on a synthetic simulator. Participants were simultaneously scored by 2 raters using the NEVAT procedural checklist and global rating scale (GRS). Evidence of internal structure was collected by calculating interrater reliability and internal consistency of raters' scores. Evidence of relationships with other variables was collected by comparing the ETV performance of experts, experienced trainees, and novices using Jonckheere's test (evidence of construct validity).

RESULTS

Thirteen experts, 11 experienced trainees, and 10 novices participated. The interrater reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient for the checklist and GRS was 0.82 and 0.94, respectively. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α) for the checklist and the GRS was 0.74 and 0.97, respectively. Median scores with interquartile range on the checklist and GRS for novices, experienced trainees, and experts were 0.69 (0.58-0.86), 0.85 (0.63-0.89), and 0.85 (0.81-0.91) and 3.1 (2.5-3.8), 3.7 (2.2-4.3) and 4.6 (4.4-4.9), respectively. Jonckheere's test showed that the median checklist and GRS score increased with performer expertise ( P = .04 and .002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study provides validity evidence for the NEVAT to support its use as a standardized method of evaluating neuroendoscopic competence during simulation-based training.

Programmatic assessment: Can we provide evidence for saturation of information?

Purpose: According to the principles of programmatic assessment, a valid high-stakes assessment of the students' performance should amongst others, be based on a multiple data points, supposedly leading to saturation of information. Saturation of information is generated when a data point does not add important information to the assessor. In establishing saturation of information, institutions often set minimum requirements for the number of assessment data points to be included in the portfolio. Methods: In this study, we aimed to provide validity evidence for saturation of information by investigating the relationship between the number of data points exceeding the minimum requirements in a portfolio and the consensus between two independent assessors. Data were analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model. Results: The results showed no relation between the number of data points and the consensus. This suggests that either the consensus is predicted by other factors only, or, more likely, that assessors already reached saturation of information. This study took the first step in investigating saturation of information, further research is necessary to gain in-depth insights of this matter in relation to the complex process of decision-making.

A critical perspective on the modified personal interview

Medical school interviews are critical for screening candidates for admission. Traditionally, the panel format is used for this process, although its drastically low reliabilities sparked the creation of the highly reliable multiple mini-interview (MMI). However, the multiple mini-interview's feasibility issues made it unappealing to some institutions, like the University of Toronto, who created the modified personal interview (MPI) as a more feasible alternative. The lack of literature about the MPI, however, prevents the medical community from determining whether this interview format achieves this goal. Therefore, evidence was compiled and critically appraised for the MPI using Kane's validity framework, which enables analysis of four levels of inference (Scoring, Generalization, Extrapolation, Implication). Upon examining each level, it was concluded that assumptions made at the 'Scoring' and 'Generalization' levels had the least support. Based on these findings, it was recommended that in-person rater training become mandatory and the number of stations increase twofold from four to eight. Moreover, the following research initiatives were suggested to improve understanding of and evidence for the modified personal interview: (1) formally blueprint each station; (2) conduct predictive validity studies for the modified personal interview, and (3) relate admission to medical school on the basis of the MPI with medical error rates. By making these changes and studying these initiatives, the MPI can become a more feasible and equally effective alternative to the MMI with more evidence to justify its implementation at other medical schools.

Teaching sociology to undergraduate medical students

Understanding the social basis of health and medicine and the contexts of clinical care are essential components of good medical practice. This includes the ways in which social factors such as class, ethnicity, and gender influence health outcomes and how people experience health, illness, and health care. In our Guide we describe what sociology is and what it brings to medicine, beginning with the nature of the "sociological imagination." Sociological theory and methods are reviewed to explain and illustrate the role of sociology in the context of undergraduate medical education. Reference is made to the 2016 report, A Core Curriculum for Sociology in UK Undergraduate Medical Education by Collett et al. Teaching and student learning are discussed in terms of organization and delivery, with an emphasis on practice. Sections are also included on assessment, evaluation, opportunities, and challenges and the value of a "community of practice" for sociology teachers in medical education.

The key-features approach to assess clinical decisions: validity evidence to date

The key-features (KFs) approach to assessment was initially proposed during the First Cambridge Conference on Medical Education in 1984 as a more efficient and effective means of assessing clinical decision-making skills. Over three decades later, we conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the validity evidence gathered since then. The evidence was compiled according to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing's five sources of validity evidence, namely, Content, Response process, Internal structure, Relations to other variables, and Consequences, to which we added two other types related to Cost-feasibility and Acceptability. Of the 457 publications that referred to the KFs approach between 1984 and October 2017, 164 are cited here; the remaining 293 were either redundant or the authors simply mentioned the KFs concept in relation to their work. While one set of articles reported meeting the validity standards, another set examined KFs test development choices and score interpretation. The accumulated validity evidence for the KFs approach since its inception supports the decision-making construct measured and its use to assess clinical decision-making skills at all levels of training and practice and with various types of exam formats. Recognizing that gathering validity evidence is an ongoing process, areas with limited evidence, such as item factor analyses or consequences of testing, are identified as well as new topics needing further clarification, such as the use of the KFs approach for formative assessment and its place within a program of assessment.