John Norcini1, M Brownell Anderson2, Valdes Bollela3, Vanessa Burch4, Manuel João Costa5, Robbert Duvivier6, Richard Hays7, Maria Felisa Palacios Mackay8, Trudie Roberts9, David Swanson10. 1. a FAIMER , Philadelphia PA , USA. 2. b NBME , Philadelphia PA , USA. 3. c School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto , Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo , Ribeirão Preto , Brazil. 4. d Groote Schuur Hospital , University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur , Cape Town , South Africa. 5. e School of Medicine , University of Minho , Braga , Portugal. 6. f Parnassia Psychiatric Institute , Maastricht University , Hague , The Netherlands. 7. g Rural Clinical School , University of Tasmania , Burnie , Australia. 8. h Cumming School of Medicine , University of Calgary , Alberta , Canada. 9. i Medical Education Unit , University of Leeds , Leeds , UK. 10. j ABMS , Chicago , IL , USA.
Abstract
Introduction: In 2010, the Ottawa Conference produced a set of consensus criteria for good assessment. These were well received and since then the working group monitored their use. As part of the 2010 report, it was recommended that consideration be given in the future to preparing similar criteria for systems of assessment. Recent developments in the field suggest that it would be timely to undertake that task and so the working group was reconvened, with changes in membership to reflect broad global representation. Methods: Consideration was given to whether the initially proposed criteria continued to be appropriate for single assessments and the group believed that they were. Consequently, we reiterate the criteria that apply to individual assessments and duplicate relevant portions of the 2010 report.Results and discussion: This paper also presents a new set of criteria that apply to systems of assessment and, recognizing the challenges of implementation, offers several issues for further consideration. Among these issues are the increasing diversity of candidates and programs, the importance of legal defensibility in high stakes assessments, globalization and the interest in portable recognition of medical training, and the interest among employers and patients in how medical education is delivered and how progression decisions are made.
Introduction: In 2010, the Ottawa Conference produced a set of consensus criteria for good assessment. These were well received and since then the working group monitored their use. As part of the 2010 report, it was recommended that consideration be given in the future to preparing similar criteria for systems of assessment. Recent developments in the field suggest that it would be timely to undertake that task and so the working group was reconvened, with changes in membership to reflect broad global representation. Methods: Consideration was given to whether the initially proposed criteria continued to be appropriate for single assessments and the group believed that they were. Consequently, we reiterate the criteria that apply to individual assessments and duplicate relevant portions of the 2010 report.Results and discussion: This paper also presents a new set of criteria that apply to systems of assessment and, recognizing the challenges of implementation, offers several issues for further consideration. Among these issues are the increasing diversity of candidates and programs, the importance of legal defensibility in high stakes assessments, globalization and the interest in portable recognition of medical training, and the interest among employers and patients in how medical education is delivered and how progression decisions are made.
Authors: Andrew S Parsons; Kelley Mark; James R Martindale; Megan J Bray; Ryan P Smith; Elizabeth Bradley; Maryellen Gusic Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Katerina Bogomolova; Amir H Sam; Adam T Misky; Chinmay M Gupte; Paul H Strutton; Thomas J Hurkxkens; Beerend P Hierck Journal: Anat Sci Educ Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.958