Cited by 303Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackCompetency Development and Evaluation

Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice

Open access
Bok, Harold GJ, Teunissen, Pim W, Favier, Robert P, Rietbroek, Nancy J, Theyse, Lars FH, Brommer, Harold, Haarhuis, Jan CM, van Beukelen, Peter +2 more·2013·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In competency-based medical education emphasis has shifted towards outcomes, capabilities, and learner-centeredness. Together with a focus on sustained evidence of professional competence this calls for new methods of teaching and assessment. Recently, medical educators advocated the use of a holistic, programmatic approach towards assessment. Besides maximum facilitation of learning it should improve the validity and reliability of measurements and documentation of competence development. We explored how, in a competency-based curriculum, current theories on programmatic assessment interacted with educational practice. METHODS: In a development study including evaluation, we investigated the implementation of a theory-based programme of assessment. Between April 2011 and May 2012 quantitative evaluation data were collected and used to guide group interviews that explored the experiences of students and clinical supervisors with the assessment programme. We coded the transcripts and emerging topics were organised into a list of lessons learned. RESULTS: The programme mainly focuses on the integration of learning and assessment by motivating and supporting students to seek and accumulate feedback. The assessment instruments were aligned to cover predefined competencies to enable aggregation of information in a structured and meaningful way. Assessments that were designed as formative learning experiences were increasingly perceived as summative by students. Peer feedback was experienced as a valuable method for formative feedback. Social interaction and external guidance seemed to be of crucial importance to scaffold self-directed learning. Aggregating data from individual assessments into a holistic portfolio judgement required expertise and extensive training and supervision of judges. CONCLUSIONS: A programme of assessment with low-stakes assessments providing simultaneously formative feedback and input for summative decisions proved not easy to implement. Careful preparation and guidance of the implementation process was crucial. Assessment for learning requires meaningful feedback with each assessment. Special attention should be paid to the quality of feedback at individual assessment moments. Comprehensive attention for faculty development and training for students is essential for the successful implementation of an assessment programme.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6920-13-123

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Bok, Harold GJ
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2013-09-11
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
123-123
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153422278
Cited by
303
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
FWCI
14.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Flinders University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
Keywords
competency-based medical education, programmatic assessment, workplace-based assessment, formative assessment, summative assessment, feedback, peer feedback, self-directed learning, portfolio assessment, low-stakes assessment, assessment implementation, faculty development, clinical supervisors, medical students
MeSH terms
Competency-Based Education, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Education, Veterinary, Educational Measurement, Humans, Netherlands, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Veterinary

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