CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 892Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.

van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., van Tartwijk, J.·2012·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We propose a model for programmatic assessment in action, which simultaneously optimises assessment for learning and assessment for decision making about learner progress. This model is based on a set of assessment principles that are interpreted from empirical research. It specifies cycles of training, assessment and learner support activities that are complemented by intermediate and final moments of evaluation on aggregated assessment data points. A key principle is that individual data points are maximised for learning and feedback value, whereas high-stake decisions are based on the aggregation of many data points. Expert judgement plays an important role in the programme. Fundamental is the notion of sampling and bias reduction to deal with the inevitable subjectivity of this type of judgement. Bias reduction is further sought in procedural assessment strategies derived from criteria for qualitative research. We discuss a number of challenges and opportunities around the proposed model. One of its prime virtues is that it enables assessment to move, beyond the dominant psychometric discourse with its focus on individual instruments, towards a systems approach to assessment design underpinned by empirically grounded theory.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239

Cites

69 of 69 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 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Cavalcanti RB, 2011, JAMA, 306, 993
  2. Cilliers FJ, 2011, Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
  3. Dijkstra J, Galbraith R, Hodges B, McAvoy P, McCrorie P, Southgate L, Van der Vleuten C, Wass V, Schuwirth L. under editorial review. Fit-for-purpose guidelines for designing programmes of assessment
  4. Harden RM, 1984, Med Teach, 18, 284
  5. Van Merriënboer JJG, 1997, Training complex cognitive skills
  6. Verhoeven BH, 1999, Educ Health, 12, 49

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 892

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., & van Tartwijk, J.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2012-02-25
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
205-214
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239
OpenAlex
W2163467994
Cited by
892
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 140 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 9
FWCI
31.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
programmatic assessment, assessment for learning, student progress, evaluation principles, expert opinion, bias mitigation, sampling, feedback, medical education
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Educational Measurement, Humans, Program Evaluation, Models, Educational

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