Summative (“acquired learning” that’s dominated assessment) and formative (feedback that helps to learn, assessment for learning)
The methods below into the workplace, require observation and feedback
Portfolios (“collection of measures”) are workplace-based / encounter-based and must include observation of the encounter and procedures, with a patient record audit i.e. 360 degree assessment. Trainee evaluated on the contents of the portfolio. The training programme maintains the portfolio, but the trainee may be expected to contribute to it.
“Tick box”-type assessment isn’t necessarily a problem, it depends on how faculty observe and assess the tasks on the list.
Other: medical knowledge test
The following assessment methods are all authentic, in the sense that they need to be based in the real world, and assesses students on what they are actually doing, not what they do in an “exam situation”.
Assessor observes a trainee during a brief (5-10 min) patient encounter, and evaluates trainee on a few aspects /dimensions of the encounter. Assessor then provides feedback. Ideally should be different patients, different assessors, different aspects. Should take 10-15 minutes.
Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS)
10-15 exercise, faculty observe a patient encounter, emphasis on procedures, assessor rates along a no. of dimentsions, assessor then provides feedback.
Chart stimulated recall
Assessor reviews a patient record where trainee makes notes. Discussion centred on the trainee’s notes, and rates things like diagnoses, planning, Rx, etc. Has an oral exam with trainee, asking questions around clinical reasoning based on the notes. Takes 10-15 minutes, and should be over multiple encounters. Must use actual patient records → validity / authentic.
360 degree evaluation
Trainee nominates peers, faculty, patients, self, etc. who then evaluate the trainee. Everyone fills out the same form, which assesses clinical and generic skills. Trainee is given self-ratings, assessor ratings, mean ratings. Discrepency forms a foundation for discussion around the misconceptions. Good to assess teamwork, communication, interpersonal skills, etc.
There are forms available for these tasks, but in reality, since it’s formative, you can make up a form that makes sense for your own profession. These assessments are meant to be brief, almost informal, encounters. They should happen as part of the working process, not scheduled as part of an “evaluation” process. This should also not replace a more comprehensive, in-depth evaluation. They may also be more appropriate for more advanced trainees, and undergrad students may be better served with a “tick-list”-type assessment tool, since they’re still learning what to do.
Don’t aim for objectivity, aim for consensus. Aggregating subjective judgements brings us to what we’re calling “objective”. We can’t remove subjectivity, even in the most rigorous MCQs, as it’s human beings that make choices about what to include, etc. So, objectivity, is actually impossible to achieve. But consensus can be achieved.
For these methods, you can make the trainee responsible for the process (i.e. they can’t progress / complete without doing all the tasks), so the trainee decides which records, when it takes place, who will assess. This creates an obvious bias. Or, faculty can drive the process, in which case it often doesn’t get done.
Why are workplace methods good for learning?
Good evidence that trainees are not observed often during their learning i.e. lack of formative assessment during the programme. Medical students are often observed for less than 10% of their time in the clinical settings. If the trainees aren’t being observed and getting feedback related to that performance.
WPBA is crtical for learning and have a significant influence on achievement. One of the 4 major factors that influence learning is feedback, which counts for massive effect sizes in learning. Feedback alone is often effective in creating achievement in 70% of studies. Feedback is based on observation. Good feedback is often about providing sensitive information to individuals, which can be challenging in a group. Positive feedback given early in training can have long-lasting effects, and can be given safely in groups.
Feedback given by different professions, at different levels, is a good thing for trainees. So, observation of procedures, etc. should be done by a variety of people, in a variety of contexts. People should be targeted for feedback, based on the type of feedback they’re most appropriate to give i.e. to give feedback on what they do best. So, it’s fine for a physio to give feedback on a doctor’s performance, but it might be about teamwork ability, rather than medical knowledge.
Giving feedback is different from giving comments. Feedback creates a pathway to improvement of learning, whereas comments might just make students feel better for a short period of time.
Types of training
Massed – many people together for a short period of time, is intense, is faster, results in higher levels of confidence among trainees, and greater satisfaction
Spaced – many people, spread out over time, results in longer retention and better performance
Retrieval of information or a perfomance enhances learning. Learning isn’t about information going in, it’s also about how to retrieve information. Testing forces retrieval. Regular repetition of a performance leads to better performance of a task.
Faculty don’t agree with direct observation of performance, on the quality of the performance. So, you need to have several observations.
All patients are different, so you have to have observations of several patients.
The time frame for a long-case assessment is unreasonable in the real world, so assessment should be within a time frame that is authentic.
WPBA focuses on formative assessment, requires observation and feedback, directs and cretes learning, responds to the problems of traditional clinical assessment.
Rating students on a scale of unsatisfactory, satisfactory, etc. is formative and doesn’t carry the weight as the weight of a pass / fail, summative assessment. We also need to make sure that dimensions of the assessment are commonly defined or understood, and that faculty expectations for the assessment are the same.
Assessment forms should be modified to suit the context it is to be used in.
Gobal vs. check list assessments
Mini-CEX is a type of global i.e. it’s a judgement based on a global perception of the trainee. Our assessments are more global assessments. The descriptions of behaviours / dimensions are meant to indicate assessors with what they should be thinking about during the assessment.
A check list is a list of behaviours, and when the behaviour occurs, the trainee gets a tick.
Our assessment forms were mixing the two types of form, which may be why there were problems.
Faculty development should aim to “surface disagreement”, because that is how you generate discussion.
Conducting the encounter
- Be prepared and have goals for the session
- Put youself into the right posotion
- Minimise external interruptions
- Avoid intrusions
Characteristics of effective faculty development programmes (Skeff, 1997) – link to PDF
Faculty training / workshops are essential to prepare faculty to use the tools. It makes them more comfortable, as well as more stringent with students. If you’re not confident in your own ability, you tend to give students the benefit of the doubt. Workshops can be used to change role model behaviours.
- Addressees three aspects: Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next?
- Four areas that feedback can focus on: task, process, self-regulation, self as a person (this last point is rarely effective, and should be avoided, therefore feedback must focus on behaviour, not on the person)
- Response to feedback is influenced by the trainees level of achievement, their culture, perceptions of the accuracy of the feedback, perceptions of credbility and trustworthiness of the assessor, perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback
- Technique of the assessor influences the impact that the feedback has: establish appropriate interpersonal climate, appropriate location, elicit trainees feelings and thoughts, focus on observed behaviours, be non judgemental, be specific, offer right amount of feedback (avoid overwhelming), suggestions for improvement
- Provide an action plan and close the loop by getting student to submit something
Novice student: emphasis feedback on the task / product / outcome
Intermediate student: emphasise specific processes related to the task / performance
Advanced student: emphasise global process that extends beyond this specific situation e.g. self-regulation, self-assessment.
Necessary to “close-the-loop” so give students something to do i.e. an action plan that requires the student to go away and do something concrete that aims to improve an aspect of their performance.
Asking students what their impressions of the task were, is a good way to set up self-regulation / self-assessment by the student.
Student relf-report on something like confidence may be valid, but student self-report on competence is probably not, because students are not good judges of their own competence.
Provide an assessment of strengths and weaknesses, enable learner reaction, encourage self-assessment, develop an aciton plan.
Quality assurance in assessment (this aspect of the workshop conducted by Dr. Marietjie de Villiers)
Coming to a consensual definition:
- External auditors (extrinsic) vs self-regulated (intrinsic)
- Developing consensus as to what is being assessed, how, etc. i.e. developing outcomes
- Including all role players / stakeholders
- Aligning outcomes, content, teaching strategies, assessment i.e. are we using the right tools for the job?
- “How can I do this better?”
- Accountability (e.g. defending a grade you’ve given) and responsibility
- There are logistical aspects to quality assurance i.e. beaurocracy and logistics
- A quality assurance framework may feel like a lot of work when everything is going smoothly, but it’s an essential “safety net” when something goes wrong
- Quality assurance has no value if it’s just “busy work” – it’s only when it’s used to change practice, that it has value
- Often supported with a legal framework
Some quality assurance practices by today’s participants:
- Regular review of assessment practices and outcomes can identify trends that may not be visible at the “gound level”.
- Problems identified should lead to changes in practice.
- Train students how to prepare for clinical assessments. Doesn’t mean that we should coach them, but prepare them for what to expect.
- Student feedback can also be valuable, especially if they have insight into the process.
- Set boundaries, or constraints on the assessment so that people are aware that you’re assessing something specific, in a specific context.
- Try to link every procedure / skill to a reference, so that every student will refer back to the same source of information.
- Simulating a context is not the same as using the actual context.
- Quality assurance is a long-term process, constantly being reviewed and adapted.
- Logistical problems with very large student groups require some creativity in assessment, as well as the evaluation of the assessment.
- Discuss the assessment with all participating assessors to ensure some level of consensus re. expectations, at a pre-exam meeting. Also have a post-exam meeting to discuss outcomes and discrepencies.
- Include external examiners in the assessment process. These external examiners should be practicing clinicians.
When running a workshop, getting input from external (perceived to be objective) people can give what you’re trying to do an air of credibility that may be missing, especially if you’re presenting to peers / colleagues.
Don’t aim for objectivity, aim for consensus
Multiple sources of input can improve the quality of the assessment
2 practical things:
Get input from internal and external sources when developing assessment tasks
Provide a standard source for procedures / skills so that all students can work from the same perspective