Learners in a programmatic assessment environment make better use of feedback
Common approaches to the assessment of competence in undergraduate and post-graduate medicine are modular — each module is completed with an assessment at the end, often resulting in a grade. Learners are passed for that module when they exceed a minimum passing level. Completing all modules results in graduation under the assumption that combining, often disparate, modules in this way assures entrustment to professional practice or ongoing training.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, Herman N, et al. A model of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012; 17: 39-53.
- 2. Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, et al. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ 2016; 5: 276-284.
- 3. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 2008; 78: 153-189.
- 4. Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten CPM, Eva KW. The hidden value of narrative comments for assessment: a quantitative reliability analysis of qualitative data. Acad Med 2017; 92: 1617-1621.
- 5. Murre JM, Dros J. Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: e0120644.
- 6. Janssen-Noordman AM, Merriënboer JJ, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Design of integrated practice for learning professional competences. Med Teach 2006; 28: 447-452.
- 7. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, et al. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2010; 32: 676-682.
- 8. Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach 2015; 37: 641-646.
- 9. Wrigley W, van der Vleuten CP, Freeman A, Muijtjens A. A systemic framework for the progress test: strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide No. 71. Med Teach 2012; 34: 683-697.
- 10. Overeem K, Lombarts M, Arah OA, et al. Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: a plea for narrative comments and coworkers’ perspectives. Med Teach 2010; 32: 141-147.
- 11. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004; 79 (Suppl): S70-S81.
- 12. Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Favier RP, et al. Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice. BMC Med Educ 2013; 13: 123.
- 13. Heeneman S, Schut S, Donkers J, et al. Embedding of the progress test in an assessment program designed according to the principles of programmatic assessment. Med Teach 2017; 39: 44-52.
- 14. Li SA, Sherbino J, Chan TM. McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) through the years: residents’ experience with an evolving feedback culture over a 3-year period. AEM Educ Train 2017; 1: 5-14.
- 15. Perry M, Linn A, Munzer BW, et al. Programmatic assessment in emergency medicine: implementation of best practices. J Grad Med Educ 2018; 10: 84-90.
- 16. Schut S, Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, et al. Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners’ perceptions within programmatic assessment. Med Educ 2018; 52: 654-663.
- 17. Altahawi F, Sisk B, Poloskey S, et al. Student perspectives on assessment: experience in a competency-based portfolio system. Med Teach 2012; 34: 221-225.
- 18. Van der Vleuten CP, Heeneman S. On the issue of costs in programmatic assessment. Perspect Med Educ 2016; 5: 303-307.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.