Skip to main content

Conceptualising Surgical Education Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Medical Education ((AMEDUC,volume 2))

Abstract

The principles of surgical assessment do not differ much from assessment of medical competence in general. Purposes of surgical assessment include not only decision making about the level of the trainee surgeons, but also, in a training setting, steering learning behaviour. Reproducibility or reliability of the assessment results, validity of the methods, their educational impact, cost efficiency and acceptability/feasibility are all important concepts to be considered when designing or changing an assessment programme. The robust research findings that the content of the assignments (and not their format) is important for validity and that good sampling across contents and possible sources of error is more important for reliability than trying to make the assessment objective have given rise to a whole new set of observation-based assessment formats for the assessment of performance in practice. Some of the most important are described here. These must be seen as an addition rather than as a replacement of more theory-orientated forms. It is important to understand that where in theory-based assessment reliability and validity are built into the test paper, in practice-based assessment these qualities depend on the user. For practice-based assessment, good teacher training is, therefore, indispensible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bodle, J. F., Kaufmann, S. J., Bisson, D., Nathanson, B., & Binney, D. M. (2008). Value and face validity of objective structured assessment of technical skills (osats) for work based assessment of surgical skills in obstetrics and gynaecology. Medical Teacher, 30, 212–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. (2006). The foundation programme assessment tools: An opportunity to enhance feedback to trainees? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 82, 576–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1993). Extended-matching items: A practical alternative to free response questions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 5, 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–76). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1983). What price simplicity? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusimano, M. D. (1996). Standard setting in medical education. Academic Medicine, 71, 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H., Archer, J., Heard, S., & Wouthgate, L. (2005). Assessment tools for foundation programmes – A practical guide. British Medical Journal, 330, 195–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driessen, E., Van Tartwijk, J., Van der Vleuten, C., & Wass, V. (2007). Portfolios in medical education: Why do they meet with mixed success? A systematic review. Medical Education, 41(12), 1224–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. (1983). The practical validation of tests of ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. The American Psychologist, 39, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R. M., & Gleeson, F. A. (1979). Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Medical Education, 13, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newble, D. I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17, 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norcini, J., Blank, L. L., Arnold, G. K., & Kimball, H. R. (1995). The mini-CEX (clinical evaluate on exercise); A preliminary investigation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123, 795–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, G., Bordage, G., & Allen, T. (1995). Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Academic Medicine, 70, 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pangaro, L. N., & Holmboe, E. S. (2008). Evaluation forms and global rating scales. In E. S. H. R. E. Hawkins (Ed.), Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., & Tate, D. (1984). A method for giving feedback. In The consultation: An approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrusa, E. R. (2002). Clinical performance assessments. In G. R. Norman, C. P. M. van der Vleuten, & D. I. Newble (Eds.), International handbook of research in medical education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1988). What is it to be an expert? In M. T. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xxix–xxxvi). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, P. G., Wenrich, M. D., Carline, J. D., Inui, T. S., Larson, E. B., & Logerfo, J. P. (1993). Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 1655–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regehr, G., Macrae, H., Reznick, R., & Szalay, D. (1998). Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an osce-format examination. Academic Medicine, 73, 993–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996). The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1, 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Swanson, D. (1990). Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: State of the art. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2, 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Norman, G. R., & De Graaf, E. (1991). Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: Issues of reliability. Medical Education, 25, 110–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P. (1997). 360-degree feedback. London: CIPD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. R., Crossley, J. G., Wragg, A., Mills, P., Cowan, G., & Wade, W. (2008). Implementing workplace-based assessment across the medical specialties in the united kingdom. Medical Education, 42, 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., Klamen, D., & McGaghie, W. (2003). Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15, 270–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lambert W. T. Schuwirth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schuwirth, L.W.T., van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2011). Conceptualising Surgical Education Assessment. In: Fry, H., Kneebone, R. (eds) Surgical Education. Advances in Medical Education, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1682-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1682-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1681-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1682-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics