The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Workplace-based assessment: a review of user perceptions and strategies to address the identified shortcomings
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Lack of faculty insight in the assessment process remains an issue [87].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [87]
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance
Miller, G. E. (1990) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 · Cited by 4,883
Square, T., London, & Wc, H. (1920) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.4.1.25 · Cited by 1,623
Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31
Norcini, J., & Burch, V. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701775453 · Cited by 984
Veloski, J., Boex, J. R., Grasberger, M. J., Evans, A., & Wolfson, D. B. (2006) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590600622665 · Cited by 500
Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors' education and performance: a systematic review
Miller, A. P., & Archer, J. C. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c5064 · Cited by 462
From context to contextualizing
van Oers, B. (1998) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00031-0 · Cited by 335
Faculty and the Observation of Trainees’ Clinical Skills: Problems and Opportunities
Holmboe, E. S. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200401000-00006 · Cited by 327
Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice
Bok, H. G., Teunissen, P. W., Favier, R. P., Rietbroek, N. J., Theyse, L. F., Brommer, H., Haarhuis, J. C., van Beukelen, P., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Jaarsma, D. A. (2013) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-123 · Cited by 303
Implementing workplace‐based assessment across the medical specialties in the United Kingdom
Wilkinson, J. R., Crossley, J. G. M., Wragg, A., Mills, P., Cowan, G., & Wade, W. (2008) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03010.x · Cited by 272
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. (2009). Improving assessment. London: Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347
Performance assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the 2020 Ottawa Conference
Boursicot, K. A. M., Kemp, S., WILKINSON, T. J., Findyartini, A., Canning, C., Cilliers, F. J., & Fuller, R. (2020) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2020.1830052 · Cited by 96
Managing tensions in assessment: moving beyond either–or thinking
Govaerts, M., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Holmboe, E. S. (2018) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13656 · Cited by 93
Improving workplace-based assessment and feedback by an E-portfolio enhanced with learning analytics
van der Schaaf, M., Donkers, J., Slof, B., Moonen-van Loon, J., van Tartwijk, J., Driessen, E., Badii, A., Serban, O., & Ten Cate, O. (2017) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9496-8 · Cited by 82
Cheung, W. J., Patey, A. M., Frank, J. R., Mackay, M., & Boet, S. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002396 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Massie, J., & Ali, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Jason M.
- ORCID
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › 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
