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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Finally, they promote the longitudinal compilation of performance data to coach the learner's continuing development (assessment for learning) and to make evidence-based decisions about the learner's progress (assessment of learning).[11][12][13][14][15]”
From The R2C2 Model in Residency Education: How Does It Foster Coaching and Promote Feedback Use? (2018) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Programmatic assessment (a system of frequent formative assessments also used for end-of-year summative judgements) is designed to optimize learning and reduce exam stress [86].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [86]
In the citing paper
“Instead, a novel assessment system has been proposed, by which the utility of assessment can complement the former approach by integrating the results of various types of feedback opportunities programmatically [42].”
From Developing Medical Education Curriculum Reform Strategies to Address the Impact of Generative AI: Qualitative Study (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance
Miller, G. E. (1990) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 · Cited by 4,883
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Klein, G. A. (2008) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x288385 · Cited by 2,434
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293930180102 · Cited by 1,281
Assessing 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
Self-citationLinking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x028004004 · Cited by 1,266
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
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Cavalcanti RB, 2011, JAMA, 306, 993
- Cilliers FJ, 2011, Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
- 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
- Harden RM, 1984, Med Teach, 18, 284
- Van Merriënboer JJG, 1997, Training complex cognitive skills
- Verhoeven BH, 1999, Educ Health, 12, 49
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boscardin, C. K., Gin, B., Golde, P. B., & Hauer, K. E. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005439 · Cited by 620
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
Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning
Watling, C., & Ginsburg, S. (2018) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13645 · Cited by 461
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
Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance
Daniel, M. M., Rencic, J. J., Durning, S. J., Holmboe, E. S., Santen, S. A., Lang, V. J., Ratcliffe, T. A., Gordon, D., Heist, B. S., Lubarsky, S., et al. (2019) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002618 · Cited by 358
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)
- 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
- 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
