The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The use of programmatic assessment in the clinical workplace: A Maastricht case report
Abstract
The differences of learning experiences in the workplace put challenges on the assessment: the assessment programme should be aligned with the general competency framework of the curriculum and also fit to the differences in learning contexts of the workplace. We used van der Vleuten's programmatic assessment model to develop a workplace-based assessment programme for final year clerkships. We aimed to design a programme that stimulates learning, supports assessment decision, is feasible and non-bureaucratic. The first experiences with the programme show that students think that the programme has high learning value and the assessment is sufficiently robust. Many of the commonly reported weaknesses of work-based assessment (not a good fit with the educational context, too complex, too bureaucratic and too much work) were not mentioned by the students.
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
“This has been successful [76] although it has also met some difficulties in implementation [69]”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [76]
Citations
Cites
Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31
Norcini, J., & Burch, V. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701775453 · Cited by 984
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 · Cited by 892
Self-citationThe assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L., Scheele, F., Driessen, E. W., & Hodges, B. D. (2010) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.04.001 · Cited by 356
Self-citationConstituting the workplace curriculum
Billett, S. R. (2005) · Journal of Curriculum Studies · doi:10.1080/00220270500153781 · Cited by 342
Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool
Norcini, J. J., Burch, V. C., & Gibbs, T. J. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 266
Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education
Driessen, E. W., van Tartwijk, J., Overeem, K., Vermunt, J. D. H. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02337.x · Cited by 258
Self-citationPortfolios for assessment and learning: AMEE Guide no. 45
van Tartwijk, J., & Driessen, E. W. (2009) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590903139201 · Cited by 233
Self-citationDriessen, E. W., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L., van Tartwijk, J., & Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02059.x · Cited by 207
Self-citationUse of portfolios in early undergraduate medical training
Driessen, E. W., van Tartwijk, J., Vermunt, J. D. H. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2003) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159021000061378 · Cited by 163
Self-citationDoctor performance assessment in daily practise: does it help doctors or not? A systematic review
Overeem, K., Faber, M. J., Arah, O. A., Elwyn, G. J., Lombarts, K. M. J. M. H., Wollersheim, H. C. H., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2007) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02897.x · Cited by 94
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- GMC, 2010, Workplace based assessment: A guide for implementation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advancing competency-based medical education: A charter for clinician–educators.
Carraccio, C., Englander, R., Van Melle, E., ten Cate, O., Lockyer, J., Chan, M.-K., Frank, J. R., & Snell, L. S. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001048 · Cited by 372
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347
Self-citationTwelve Tips for programmatic assessment
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Govaerts, M. J. B., & Heeneman, S. (2015) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.973388 · Cited by 333
Self-citationThe impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice
Heeneman, S., Pool, A. O., Schuwirth, L., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Driessen, E. W. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12645 · Cited by 213
Self-citationOttawa 2020 consensus statement for programmatic assessment – 1. Agreement on the principles
Heeneman, S., de Jong, L. H., Dawson, L. J., WILKINSON, T. J., Ryan, A., Tait, G. R., Rice, N. E., Torre, D. M., Freeman, A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2021) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1957088 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Driessen, E. W., van Tartwijk, J., Govaerts, M., Teunissen, P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Driessen, Erik W.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-02-25
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 226-231
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2112821646
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.41
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- programmatic assessment, workplace-based assessment, medical education, competency framework, assessment design, student perceptions, assessment decision-making, Maastricht
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Clerkship, Educational Measurement, Humans, Netherlands, Students, Medical, Program Evaluation, Models, Educational, Models, Organizational, Problem-Based Learning
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
