Making it fair: Learners' and assessors' perspectives of the attributes of fair judgement

Entrustment versus performance scale in high-stakes OSCEs: Rater insights and psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

Although entrustment scales are increasingly applied in workplace-based assessments, their role in OSCEs remains unclear. We investigated raters' perceptions using an entrustment scale and psychometric analyses.

METHOD

A mixed-methods design was used. OSCE raters' (n = 162) perceptions were explored via questionnaire and four focus groups (n = 14). Psychometric OSCE properties were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Raters (n = 53, response rate = 41%) considered the entrustment scale comprehensible (89%) and applicable (60%). A total of 43% preferred the entrustment scale, 21% preferred the global performance scale, and 36% were undecided. Raters' written comments indicated that while they appreciated the authenticity of entrustment levels, they considered them subjective. The focus groups highlighted three main themes: (1) recollections of the clinical workplace as a cognitive reference triggered by entrustment scales; (2) factors influencing entrustment decisions; and (3) cognitive load is reduced at the perceived cost of objectivity. Psychometric analyses (n = 480 students) revealed improvements in some OSCE metrics when entrustment and global performance scales were combined.

CONCLUSION

Entrustment scales are beneficial for high-stakes OSCEs and have greater clinical relevance from the raters' perspective. Our findings support the use of entrustment and global performance scales in combination.

Fairness in Assessment: Identifying a Complex Adaptive System

Introduction

Assessment design in health professions education is continuously evolving. There is an increasing desire to better embrace human judgement in assessment. Thus, it is essential to understand what makes this judgement fair. This study builds upon existing literature by studying how assessment leaders conceptualise the characteristics of fair judgement.

Methods

Sixteen assessment leaders from 15 medical schools in Australia and New Zealand participated in online focus groups. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently and iteratively. We used the constant comparison method to identify themes and build on an existing conceptual model of fair judgement in assessment.

Results

Fairness is a multi-dimensional construct with components at environment, system and individual levels. Components influencing fairness include articulated and agreed learning outcomes relating to the needs of society, a culture which allows for learner support, stakeholder agency and learning (environmental level), collection, interpretation and combination of evidence, procedural strategies (system level) and appropriate individual assessments and assessor expertise and agility (individual level).

Discussion

We observed that within the data at fractal, that is an infinite pattern repeating at different scales, could be seen suggesting fair judgement should be considered a complex adaptive system. Within complex adaptive systems, it is primarily the interaction between the entities which influences the outcome it produces, not simply the components themselves. Viewing fairness in assessment through a lens of complexity rather than as a linear, causal model has significant implications for how we design assessment programs and seek to utilise human judgement in assessment.

Educators as Judges: Applying Judicial Decision-Making Principles to High-Stakes Education Assessment Decisions

Phenomenon: Programmatic assessment and competency-based education have highlighted the need to make robust high-stakes assessment decisions on learner performance from evidence of varying types and quality. Without guidance, lengthy deliberations by decision makers and competence committees can end inconclusively with unresolved concerns. These decisional dilemmas are heightened by their potential impacts. For learners, erroneous decisions may lead to an unjustified exit from a long-desired career, or premature promotion to clinical responsibilities. For educators, there is the risk of wrongful decision-making, leading to successful appeals and mistrust. For communities, ill-prepared graduates risk the quality and safety of care. Approaches such as psychometric analyses are limited when decision-makers are faced with seemingly contradictory qualitative and quantitative evidence about the same individual. Expertise in using such evidence to make fair and defensible decisions is well established in judicial practice but is yet to be practically applied to assessment decision-making. Approach: Through interdisciplinary exchange, we investigated medical education and judicial perspectives on decision-making to explore whether principles of decision-making in law could be applied to educational assessment decision-making. Using Dialogic Inquiry, an iterative process of scholarly and mutual critique, we contrasted assessment decision making in medical education with judicial practice to identify key principles in judicial decision-making relevant to educational assessment decisions. We developed vignettes about common but problematic high-stakes decision-making scenarios to test how these principles could apply. Findings: Over 14 sessions, we identified, described, and applied four principles for fair, reasonable, and transparent assessment decision-making. These were: The person whose interests are affected has a right to know the case against them, and to be heard.Reasons for the decision should be given.Rules should be transparent and consistently applied.Like cases should be treated alike and unlike cases treated differently.Reflecting our dialogic process, we report findings by separately presenting the medical educator and judicial perspectives, followed by a synthesis describing a preferred approach to decision-making in three vignettes. Insights: Judicial principles remind educators to consider both sides of arguments, to be consistent, and to demonstrate transparency when making assessment decisions. Dialogic Inquiry is a useful approach for generating interdisciplinary insights on challenges in medical education by critiquing difference (e.g., the meaning of objectivity) and achieving synthesis where possible (e.g., fairness is not equal treatment of all cases). Our principles and exemplars provide groundwork for promoting good practice and furthering assessment research toward fairer and more robust decisions that will assist learning.

Embedding a Coaching Culture into Programmatic Assessment

Educational change in higher education is challenging and complex, requiring engagement with a multitude of perspectives and contextual factors. In this paper, we present a case study based on our experiences of enacting a fundamental educational change in a medical program; namely, the steps taken in the transition to programmatic assessment. Specifically, we reflect on the successes and failures in embedding a coaching culture into programmatic assessment. To do this, we refer to the principles of programmatic assessment as they apply to this case and conclude with some key lessons that we have learnt from engaging in this change process. Fostering a culture of programmatic assessment that supports learners to thrive through coaching has required compromise and adaptability, particularly in light of the changes to teaching and learning necessitated by the global pandemic. We continue to inculcate this culture and enact the principles of programmatic assessment with a focus on continuous quality improvement.