Cited by 147Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

Workplace-based assessment: a review of user perceptions and strategies to address the identified shortcomings

Massie, Jonathan, Ali, Jason M.·2016·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Workplace based assessments (WBAs) are now commonplace in postgraduate medical training. User acceptability and engagement is essential to the success of any medical education innovation. To this end, possessing an insight into trainee and trainer perceptions towards WBAs will help identify the major problems, permitting strategies to be introduced to improve WBA implementation. A review of literature was performed to identify studies examining trainee and trainer perceptions towards WBAs. Studies were excluded if non-English or sampling a non-medical/dental population. The identified literature was synthesised for the purpose of this critical narrative review. It is clear that there is widespread negativity towards WBAs in the workplace. This has negatively impacted on the effectiveness of WBA tools as learning aids. This negativity exists in trainees but also to an extent in their trainers. Insight gained from the literature reveals three dominant problems with WBA implementation: poor understanding as to the purpose of WBAs; insufficient time available for undertaking these assessments; and inadequate training of trainers. Approaches to addressing these three problems with WBA implementation are discussed. It is likely that a variety of solutions will be required. The prevalence of negativity towards WBAs is substantial in both trainees and trainers, eroding the effectiveness of learning that is consequent upon them. The educational community must now listen to the concerns being raised by the users and consider the range of strategies being proposed to improve the experiences of trainees, and their trainers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-015-9614-0

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Massie, J., & Ali, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Ali, Jason M.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2015-05-24
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
455-473
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W314279525
Cited by
147
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
workplace-based assessment, graduate medical education, trainee perceptions, trainer perceptions, user acceptance, assessment implementation, trainer training, medical education innovation
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Employee Performance Appraisal, Faculty, Medical, Humans, Internship and Residency, Perception, Workplace, Observation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review