The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment in the post-psychometric era: Learning to love the subjective and collective
Abstract
Since the 1970s, assessment of competence in the health professions has been dominated by a discourse of psychometrics that emphasizes the conversion of human behaviors to numbers and prioritizes high-stakes, point-in-time sampling, and standardization. There are many advantages to this approach, including increased fairness to test takers; however, some limitations of overemphasis on this paradigm are evident. Further, two shifts are underway that have significant consequences for assessment. First, as clinical practice becomes more interprofessional and team-based, the locus of competence is shifting from individuals to teams. Second, expensive, high-stakes final examinations are not well suited for longitudinal assessment in workplaces. The result is a need to consider assessment methods that are subjective and collective.
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
A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population
Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A.-H. S., Dellinger, E. P., Herbosa, T., Joseph, S., Kibatala, P. L., Lapitan, M. C. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0810119 · Cited by 5,688 · cited 1×
“Many studies have since demonstrated improved patient outcomes when team-based training is employed (Haynes et al. 2009; Marr et al. 2012; Stevens et al. 2012).”
BackgroundAssessment in medical education
Epstein, R. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054784 · Cited by 1,872
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
Cited by
Amending miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation.
Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000913 · Cited by 558
A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework
Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12678 · Cited by 554
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
Ramani, S., Post, S. E., Könings, K., Mann, K., Katz, J. T., & van der Vleuten, C. (2017) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2016.1244014 · Cited by 138
Predictors of faculty narrative evaluation quality in medical school clerkships
Mooney, C. J., Pascoe, J. M., Blatt, A. E., Lang, V. J., Kelly, M. S., Braun, M. K., Burch, J. E., & Stone, R. T. (2022) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.14911 · Cited by 10
Jain, P. G., McBride, M. E., Caliendo, A., & Eppich, W. (2022) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-21-00936.1 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodges, B.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-04-30
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 564-568
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2145187709
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
