The Effect of Foregrounding Intended Use on Observers' Ratings and Comments in the Assessment of Clinical Competence.


Journal

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
ISSN: 1938-808X
Titre abrégé: Acad Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904605

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 15 11 2019
medline: 1 7 2020
entrez: 15 11 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Some educational programs have adopted the premise that the same assessment can serve both formative and summative goals; however, how observers understand and integrate the intended uses of assessment may affect the way they execute the assessment task. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of foregrounding a different intended use (formative vs summative learner assessment) on observer contributions (ratings and comments). In this randomized, experimental, between-groups, mixed-methods study (May-September 2017), participants observed 3 prerecorded clinical performances under formative or summative assessment conditions. Participants rated performances using a global rating tool and provided comments. Participants were then asked to reconsider their ratings from the alternative perspective (from which they were originally blinded). They received the opportunity to alter their ratings and comments and to provide rationales for their decision to change or preserve their original ratings and comments. Outcomes included participant-observers' comments, ratings, changes to each, and stated rationales for changing or preserving their contributions. Foregrounding different intended uses of assessment data for participant-observers did not result in differences in ratings, number or type of comments (both emphasized evaluative over constructive statements), or the ability to differentiate among performances. After adopting the alternative perspective, participant-observers made only small changes in ratings or comments. Participant-observers reported that they engage in the process in an evaluative manner despite different intended uses. Foregrounding different intended uses for assessments did not result in significant systematic differences in the assessment data generated. Observers provided more evaluative than constructive statements overall, regardless of the intended use of the assessment. Future research is needed to explore whether these results hold in social/workplace-based contexts and how they might affect learners.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31725463
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003076
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

777-785

Auteurs

Walter Tavares (W)

W. Tavares is assistant professor and scientist, The Wilson Centre, and Post-MD Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-9448. M. Young is associate professor, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2036-2119. G. Gauthier is adjunct professor, Medecine Interne, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7368-638X. C. St-Onge is professor, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5313-0456.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH