CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,000Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda

Eva, Kevin W., Regehr, Glenn·2005·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many researchers and educators have identified self-assessment as a vital aspect of professional self-regulation.1,2,3 This rationale has been the expressed motivation for a large number of studies of self-assessment ability in medical education, health professional education, and professions education generally. Unfortunately, the outcome of most studies would seem to cast doubt on the capacity for self-assessment, with the majority of authors concluding that self-assessment is, in fact, quite poor.4 In a recent article, Ward and colleagues suggested that this conclusion must be questioned because the methodologies used to evaluate self-assessment are fraught with methodological weaknesses.4 However, even studies that have attempted to address the weaknesses within the methodological paradigm have produced little evidence for effective self-assessment.5 Thus, the health professional education community is left with a conundrum that can only be resolved by deciding either that the conclusions of the studies are wrong, or that a critical premise underlying the concept of “self-regulation” in the professions is unsupportable. The current paper addresses this conundrum by arguing that there is a problem with the literature on self-assessment, and that this problem is more fundamental than a list of easily correctable methodological flaws. Rather, the roots of the problem in the self-assessment literature involve a failure to effectively conceptualize the nature of self-assessment in the daily practice of health care professionals, and a failure to properly explicate the role of self-assessment in a self-regulating profession. Until such an articulation of self-assessment is elaborated, it is difficult to know even which literatures might be informative in addressing this issue, and impossible to develop programs of research that operationalize the concept of self-assessment ability in a form that can be effectively studied. Thus, we will begin with a brief reflection on the various functions of self-assessment for a practicing health care professional and the manner in which these functions operate. The Purposes of Self-Assessment in Practice Self-assessment has been defined broadly as the involvement of learners in judging whether or not learner-identified standards have been met.6 While attractive due to their concise and encompassing nature, we fear that such simple definitions risk being misleading as they can cause underappreciation of the complexities of the construct. Self-assessment functions both as a mechanism for identifying one’s weaknesses and as a mechanism for identifying one’s strengths. Each of these mechanisms can be considered to have distinct, albeit complementary, functions. As a mechanism for identifying weaknesses or gaps in one’s skills and abilities, self-assessment serves several potential functions. First, in daily practice, the identification of one’s weaknesses allows the professional to self-limit in areas of limited competence. For example, in many circumstances the professional can quickly reject certain plans of action because she recognizes that she is unlikely to be able to complete the component tasks necessary to enact the plan. In other circumstances, a professional might recognize that he is “over his head” in a particular case and decide that it is time to recruit additional resources: to “look this up,” to obtain a consultation, to recruit additional support, or to refer the problem to another individual who is more competent in this domain. Second, in reflecting on one’s practice in general, the ability to identify weaknesses can serve the function of helping the professional set appropriate learning goals. That is, the traditional model of self-regulated continuing professional development presumes that an individual will select ongoing learning activities that fill professional gaps, but this presumes that the professional can effectively self-assess. Thus, in this role, the identification of weakness can help a professional to decide what must be learned. As a corollary to this, effective self-assessment is vital for setting realistic expectations of oneself, to avoid setting oneself up for failure. Thus, the identification of weakness also helps the self-regulating professional to decide what not to try learning, what should be accepted as forever outside one’s scope of competent practice. There is a complementary set of functions served by the ability to accurately self-assess one’s strengths. First, in daily practice, having a clear and accurate sense of one’s strengths allows the professional to act with appropriate confidence. For example, knowing one’s strengths provides the professional with the confidence to move forward on a fitting plan of action without inappropriate hesitation or trepidation. Similarly, it ensures that the individual will choose to persist on an appropriate plan of action in the face of initially negative feedback. The right path is not

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arnold, 1985, J Med Educ, 60, 21
  2. Shapiro, 1996, Am Psychol, 51, 1213, 10.1037/0003-066X.51.12.1213 · DOI
  3. Whittlesea, 1993, 19, 1235

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Eva, Kevin W.
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-10
Volume
80
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S46-S54
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015
OpenAlex
W2120386903
Semantic Scholar
3157ebc5ee38639f73962821385248f935e082e0
Cited by
992
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 56
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
self-assessment, self-regulation, health professions education, professional self-regulation, self-assessment ability, research agenda
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Models, Psychological, Research Design, Self-Assessment, Self Concept, Self-Evaluation Programs, Knowledge, Self Efficacy

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