Conceptualising Surgical Education Assessment
Purchase on Springer.com
$29.95 / €24.95 / £19.95*
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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.
- 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. CrossRef
- Carr, S. (2006). The foundation programme assessment tools: An opportunity to enhance feedback to trainees? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 82, 576–579. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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.
- Cronbach, L. J. (1983). What price simplicity? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 11–12. CrossRef
- Cusimano, M. D. (1996). Standard setting in medical education. Academic Medicine, 71, 112–120. CrossRef
- Davies, H., Archer, J., Heard, S., & Wouthgate, L. (2005). Assessment tools for foundation programmes – A practical guide. British Medical Journal, 330, 195–196.
- 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. CrossRef
- Ebel, R. L. (1983). The practical validation of tests of ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 7–10. CrossRef
- Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. The American Psychologist, 39, 193–202. CrossRef
- Harden, R. M., & Gleeson, F. A. (1979). Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Medical Education, 13, 41–54.
- Newble, D. I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17, 165–171. CrossRef
- 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.
- Page, G., Bordage, G., & Allen, T. (1995). Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Academic Medicine, 70, 194–201. CrossRef
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Ward, P. (1997). 360-degree feedback. London: CIPD.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Conceptualising Surgical Education Assessment
- Book Title
- Surgical Education
- Book Subtitle
- Theorising an Emerging Domain
- pp 75-90
- Print ISBN
- Online ISBN
- Series Title
- Advances in Medical Education
- Series Volume
- Series ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Copyright Holder
- Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
- Additional Links
- eBook Packages
- Editor Affiliations
- ID1. Centre for Educational Development, Imperial College London
- ID2. St. Mary' Hospital London, Dept. Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College London
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
To view the rest of this content please follow the download PDF link above.