CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,268Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackCompetency Development and Evaluation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes

Van Der Vleuten, Cees P M, Schuwirth, Lambert W T·2005·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction We use a utility model to illustrate that, firstly, selecting an assessment method involves context‐dependent compromises, and secondly, that assessment is not a measurement problem but an instructional design problem, comprising educational, implementation and resource aspects. In the model, assessment characteristics are differently weighted depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. Empirical and theoretical developments Of the characteristics in the model, we focus on reliability, validity and educational impact and argue that they are not inherent qualities of any instrument. Reliability depends not on structuring or standardisation but on sampling. Key issues concerning validity are authenticity and integration of competencies. Assessment in medical education addresses complex competencies and thus requires quantitative and qualitative information from different sources as well as professional judgement. Adequate sampling across judges, instruments and contexts can ensure both validity and reliability. Despite recognition that assessment drives learning, this relationship has been little researched, possibly because of its strong context dependence. Assessment as instructional design When assessment should stimulate learning and requires adequate sampling, in authentic contexts, of the performance of complex competencies that cannot be broken down into simple parts, we need to make a shift from individual methods to an integral programme, intertwined with the education programme. Therefore, we need an instructional design perspective. Implications for development and research Programmatic instructional design hinges on a careful description and motivation of choices, whose effectiveness should be measured against the intended outcomes. We should not evaluate individual methods, but provide evidence of the utility of the assessment programme as a whole.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x

Cites

44 of 44 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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Van Merriënboer JJG, 1997, Training Complex Cognitive Skills.
  2. Gibbs G, 2002, How Assessment Influences Student Learning – a Conceptual Overview:
  3. Epstein RM, 2001, Comprehensive Assessment Manual
  4. Swanson DB, 1987, Further Developments in Assessing Clinical Competence, 13
  5. Van Der Vleuten CPM, 1988, Reliability (Generalisability) of the Maastricht Skills Test.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,268

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
ORCID
Schuwirth, Lambert W T
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02-23
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
309-317
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x
OpenAlex
W2163175447
Cited by
1,268
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 47
FWCI
33.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Competency Development and Evaluation
Keywords
professional competence assessment, assessment methods, assessment reliability, assessment validity, sampling, authenticity, competency-based education
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Learning, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation

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