CONTEXT: A major goal of any evaluation is to demonstrate content validity, which considers both curricular content as well as the ability expected of learners. Whether evaluation blueprints should be published and the degree of blueprint transparency is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of blueprint publication on students' perceptions of the validity of the evaluation process. METHODS: This study examined students' attitudes towards the Renal Course evaluation before and after blueprint publication. There was no significant change in the course objectives, blueprint or evaluation between the two time periods. Students' attitudes were evaluated using a questionnaire containing four items related to evaluation. Also collected were the overall course ratings, minimum performance level (MPL) for evaluations and students' performance on each exam. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the MPL or evaluation scores between the two time periods. A significantly greater proportion of students perceived that the Renal Course evaluation was a fair test and was reflective of both important subject matter and the delivered curriculum. The increased satisfaction process did not appear to be a reflection of their overall satisfaction with the course as there was a trend towards reduced overall satisfaction with the course. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of the evaluation blueprint appears to improve students' perceptions of the validity of the evaluation process. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for this attitude change. We propose that blueprint transparency drives both instructors teaching and student learning towards key educational elements.
CONTEXT: A major goal of any evaluation is to demonstrate content validity, which considers both curricular content as well as the ability expected of learners. Whether evaluation blueprints should be published and the degree of blueprint transparency is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of blueprint publication on students' perceptions of the validity of the evaluation process. METHODS: This study examined students' attitudes towards the Renal Course evaluation before and after blueprint publication. There was no significant change in the course objectives, blueprint or evaluation between the two time periods. Students' attitudes were evaluated using a questionnaire containing four items related to evaluation. Also collected were the overall course ratings, minimum performance level (MPL) for evaluations and students' performance on each exam. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the MPL or evaluation scores between the two time periods. A significantly greater proportion of students perceived that the Renal Course evaluation was a fair test and was reflective of both important subject matter and the delivered curriculum. The increased satisfaction process did not appear to be a reflection of their overall satisfaction with the course as there was a trend towards reduced overall satisfaction with the course. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of the evaluation blueprint appears to improve students' perceptions of the validity of the evaluation process. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for this attitude change. We propose that blueprint transparency drives both instructors teaching and student learning towards key educational elements.