The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What is wrong with assessment in postgraduate training? Lessons from clinical practice and educational research
Abstract
Workplace-based assessment is more commonly given a lukewarm than a warm welcome by its prospective users. In this article, we summarise the workplace-based assessment literature as well as our own experiences with workplace-based assessment to derive lessons that can facilitate acceptance of workplace-based assessment in postgraduate specialty training. We propose to shift the emphasis in workplace-based assessment from assessment of trainee performance to the learning of trainees. Workplace-based assessment should focus on supporting supervisors in taking entrustment decisions by complementing their "gut feeling" with information from assessments and focus less on assessment and testability. One of the most stubborn problems with workplace-based assessment is the absence of observation of trainees and the lack of feedback based on observations. Non-standardised observations are used to organise feedback. To make these assessments meaningful for learning, it is essential that they are not perceived as summative by their users, that they provide narrative feedback for the learner and that there is a form of facilitation that helps to integrate the feedback in trainees' self-assessments.
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
“Because of the potential for grades to demotivate or to reduce effort, it has been suggested that it might be wisest to avoid giving grades except when formally assessing the learner (in infrequent ‘high stakes’ assessments) [58].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-3712 · Cited by 1,642
Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting.
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.617 · Cited by 1,547
ten Cate, O., & Scheele, F. (2007) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31805559c7 · Cited by 1,162
Self-citationWorkplace-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-citationState of the science in health professional education: effective feedback
Archer, J. C. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x · Cited by 783
Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors' education and performance: a systematic review
Miller, A. P., & Archer, J. C. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c5064 · Cited by 462
Failure to Fail: The Perspectives of Clinical Supervisors
Dudek, N. L., Marks, M. B., & Regehr, G. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00023 · Cited by 422
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Driessen EW, 2010, Med Cont, 65, 31
- GMC, 2010, Workplace based assessment: A guide for implementation
- Holmboe E, Hawkins R, editors. 2008. Practical guide to the evaluation of clincial competence. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier.
- ten Cate O, 2006, Br Med J, 7, 748
- Wass V, 2011, Medical education: theory and practice, 229
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning
Watling, C., & Ginsburg, S. (2018) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13645 · Cited by 461
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
Rekman, J. F., Gofton, W. T., Dudek, N. L., Gofton, T., & Hamstra, S. J. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001045 · Cited by 238
The 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-citationIdentifying coaching skills to improve feedback use in postgraduate medical education
Armson, H., Lockyer, J. M., Zetkulic, M., Könings, K. D., & Sargeant, J. (2019) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13818 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Driessen, E., & Scheele, F.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Driessen, Erik
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-05-23
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 569-574
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2170153256
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 13.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (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
- workplace-based assessment, graduate medical education, specialist training, entrustment decisions, trainee learning, clinical supervision, narrative feedback, summative assessment, self-assessment
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Feedback, Humans, Internship and Residency, Workplace
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
