The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we outline criteria for good assessment that include: (1) validity or coherence, (2) reproducibility or consistency, (3) equivalence, (4) feasibility, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effect, and (7) acceptability. Many of the criteria have been described before and we continue to support their importance here. However, we place particular emphasis on the catalytic effect of the assessment, which is whether the assessment provides results and feedback in a fashion that creates, enhances, and supports education. These criteria do not apply equally well to all situations. Consequently, we discuss how the purpose of the test (summative versus formative) and the perspectives of stakeholders (examinees, patients, teachers-educational institutions, healthcare system, and regulators) influence the importance of the criteria. Finally, we offer a series of practice points as well as next steps that should be taken with the criteria. Specifically, we recommend that the criteria be expanded or modified to take account of: (1) the perspectives of patients and the public, (2) the intimate relationship between assessment, feedback, and continued learning, (3) systems of assessment, and (4) accreditation systems.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance
Miller, G. E. (1990) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 · Cited by 4,883
The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture
Shepard, L. A. (2000) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x029007004 · Cited by 2,161 · cited 1×
“It would be a mistake to recognize the importance of assessment and yet not to connect it with the scholarship of teaching and learning (Shepard 2000).”
BackgroundAssessment in medical education
Epstein, R. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054784 · Cited by 1,872
A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980) · doi:10.21236/ada084551 · Cited by 1,572 · cited 1×
“Along the first dimension are the competencies that need to be assessed, along the second is the level of assessment required, and along the third is the trainee’s stage of development (Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1980; Miller 1990; Norcini et al. 2008).”
BackgroundAssessing professional competence: from methods to programmes
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x · Cited by 1,268
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247
Formative assessment: a key to deep learning?
Rushton, A. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500129159 · Cited by 291
Cited by
Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education.
Lockyer, J., Carraccio, C., Chan, M.-K., Hart, D., Smee, S., Touchie, C., Holmboe, E. S., Frank, J. R., & Collaborators, O. B. O. T. I. (2017) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1315082 · Cited by 493
Implementation of competency‐based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges?
Hawkins, R. E., Welcher, C. M., Holmboe, E. S., Kirk, L. M., Norcini, J. J., Simons, K. B., & Skochelak, S. E. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12831 · Cited by 409
Self-citationIs the OSCE a feasible tool to assess competencies in undergraduate medical education?
Patrício, M. F., Julião, M., Fareleira, F., & Carneiro, A. V. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.774330 · Cited by 309
Entrustment decision making: extending miller’s pyramid.
ten Cate, O., Carraccio, C., Damodaran, A., Gofton, W., Hamstra, S. J., Hart, D. E., Richardson, D., Ross, S., Schultz, K., Warm, E. J., et al. (2021) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003800 · Cited by 160
Hubinette, M., Dobson, S., Scott, I., & Sherbino, J. (2017) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1245853 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Norcini, J., Anderson, B., Bollela, V., Burch, V., Costa, M. J., Duvivier, R., Galbraith, R., Hays, R., Kent, A., Perrott, V., & Roberts, T.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02-23
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 206-214
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2128363176
- Cited by
- 574
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 24.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/0142159x.2011.551559
- The paper
- Norcini, J., Anderson, B., Bollela, V., Burch, V., Costa, M. J., Duvivier, R., Galbraith, R., Hays, R., Kent, A., Perrott, V., & Roberts, T. (2011). Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.551559
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.