CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 984Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31

Norcini, John, Burch, Vanessa·2007·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.1080/01421590701775453
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been concern that trainees are seldom observed, assessed, and given feedback during their workplace-based education. This has led to an increasing interest in a variety of formative assessment methods that require observation and offer the opportunity for feedback. AIMS: To review some of the literature on the efficacy and prevalence of formative feedback, describe the common formative assessment methods, characterize the nature of feedback, examine the effect of faculty development on its quality, and summarize the challenges still faced. RESULTS: The research literature on formative assessment and feedback suggests that it is a powerful means for changing the behaviour of trainees. Several methods for assessing it have been developed and there is preliminary evidence of their reliability and validity. A variety of factors enhance the efficacy of workplace-based assessment including the provision of feedback that is consistent with the needs of the learner and focused on important aspects of the performance. Faculty plays a critical role and successful implementation requires that they receive training. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for formative assessment which offers trainees the opportunity for feedback. Several good methods exist and feedback has been shown to have a major influence on learning. The critical role of faculty is highlighted, as is the need for strategies to enhance their participation and training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01421590701775453

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Grades are often given with the comment boxes left blank.

    “but all too often grades are given with the comment boxes left blank [56].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [56]

  • The mini-CEX and other workplace assessments are most valuable as instruments for learning, rather than as a formal assessment of competence.

    “The mini-CEX and other workplace assessments are most valuable as instruments for learning, rather than as a formal assessment of competence, but all too often grades are given with the comment boxes left blank [56].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Paper instruments such as the mini-CEX are frequently used as tick-box exercises to enable progression of trainees, despite being designed to rely on observation and include space for feedback documentation.

    “Although designed to rely on observation of at least one clinical encounter and including space for documentation of feedback discussions, paper instruments such as the mini-CEX are frequently used as tick-box exercises to enable progression of trainees [56].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [56]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Norcini, J., & Burch, V.
Affiliations
  • Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (US)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Norcini, John
ORCID
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-01
Volume
29
Issue
9-10
Pages
855-871
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.1080/01421590701775453
OpenAlex
W2141361828
Cited by
984
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 102 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 32
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
workplace-based assessment, formative assessment, formative feedback, medical trainees, faculty development, medical education
MeSH terms
Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Humans, Internship and Residency, Psychology, Educational, Staff Development, Students, Medical, Teaching, Feedback, Psychological

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