Search

Competency-based education has become central to the training and assessment of post-graduate medical trainees or residents . In competency-based education, there is a strong focus on outcomes and professional performance. Typically, holistic tasks are used to train, practice and assess the defined outcomes or competencies. In residency training, these tasks are part of the day-to-day clinical practice. The performance of residents in the workplace needs to be captured and stored. A portfolio has been used as an instrument for storage and collection of workplace-based assessment and feedback in various countries, like the Netherlands and the United States. The collection of information in a portfolio can serve or be used for a variety of purposes. These are: In post-graduate medical education, these purposes can be combined but this is not always reported transparently. In this paper, we will discuss the different perspectives, how a portfolio can serve these three purposes and what are opportunities and challenges of combining multiple purposes.

Introduction: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. Methods: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. Results: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post‐positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context‐dependent), audience‐centric and inclusive. Discussion: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real‐world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory. How do HPE experts conceptualize the argumentation aspect of validity? @Midwest_MedPeds @ab_martini @LaraVarpio @erikdriessen @DrDanSchumacher explore the gap between theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While portfolios are increasingly used to assess competence, the validity of such portfolio-based assessments has hitherto remained unconfirmed. The purpose of the present research is therefore to further our understanding of how assessors form judgments when interpreting the complex data included in a competency-based portfolio. Eighteen assessors appraised one of three competency-based mock portfolios while thinking aloud, before taking part in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis of the think-aloud protocols and interviews revealed that assessors reached judgments through a 3-phase cyclical cognitive process of acquiring, organizing, and integrating evidence. Upon conclusion of the first cycle, assessors reviewed the remaining portfolio evidence to look for confirming or disconfirming evidence. Assessors were inclined to stick to their initial judgments even when confronted with seemingly disconfirming evidence. Although assessors reached similar final (pass-fail) judgments of students' professional competence, they differed in their information-processing approaches and the reasoning behind their judgments. Differences sprung from assessors' divergent assessment beliefs, performance theories, and inferences about the student. Assessment beliefs refer to assessors' opinions about what kind of evidence gives the most valuable and trustworthy information about the student's competence, whereas assessors' performance theories concern their conceptualizations of what constitutes professional competence and competent performance. Even when using the same pieces of information, assessors furthermore differed with respect to inferences about the student as a person as well as a (future) professional. Our findings support the notion that assessors' reasoning in judgment and decision-making varies and is guided by their mental models of performance assessment, potentially impacting feedback and the credibility of decisions. Our findings also lend further credence to the assertion that portfolios should be judged by multiple assessors who should, moreover, thoroughly substantiate their judgments. Finally, it is suggested that portfolios be designed in such a way that they facilitate the selection of and navigation through the portfolio evidence.

During placements abroad, healthcare students are confronted with different personal and professional challenges, related to participation in practice. This study investigates when and how students respond to such challenges, and which coping and support mechanisms students use to overcome these. Twenty-five international students shared their experiences about physiotherapy placement in The Netherlands. Using a critical incident technique, we asked participants to recall events where participation was affected by an unforeseen situation, in or outside the clinic. Further, we explored students' strategies of seeking support within their social network to overcome individual challenges. Two researchers applied thematic analysis to the interview data, following an iterative approach. Team discussions supported focused direction of data collection and analysis, before conceptualizing results. Participants described a wide range of challenges. The scope and impact level of challenges varied widely, including intercultural differences, language barriers and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, students' personal context and wellbeing. Mechanisms employed by students to overcome these challenges depended on the type of event (personal or professional), making purposeful use of their available network. Students involve clinical staff, peers, family and friends during placement abroad, to make deliberate use of their support network to overcome challenges in participation, whereas the academic network remains distant. Findings may help reflect on the roles and responsibilities of academic staff and other professionals involved with placements abroad. Healthcare programmes should ensure support before, during and after placement is within students' reach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crossborder curriculum partnerships, entailing the transposition of an entire curriculum and the related degree(s) from "home" to "host" institution, are a rather new phenomenon in internationalization in education. The literature describes successful and unsuccessful partnerships, but critical factors for the success or failure of sustainable partnerships remain to be identified. We conducted a narrative literature review to find such factors. Using an iterative approach, we analyzed 39 articles retrieved from Web of Science, Google Scholar, ERIC, PubMed, and PsycInfo and meeting the inclusion criteria. We developed a framework of 13 factors in four domains: students, teachers, curriculum, and soft and hard project management. Simply copy-pasting a curriculum is generally considered to be destined for failure. To overcome challenges, partners should take preventive and affirmative measures across multiple domains. The findings may provide guidance to those considering or engaged in designing, developing, managing, and reviewing a crossborder partnership.

A tool used in student-centered education is discussion among students in small learning groups. The Western origin of student-centered education, coupled with cross-cultural differences in communication styles, may detract from its cross-cultural applicability. This study investigates how in student-centered education, students' cultural backgrounds are expressed in discussions and shape students' discussion behaviors and skills. A comparative case study using problem-based learning as a student-centered model was conducted in three medical schools located in East Asia, Western Europe and the Middle East. Four cultural factors were found to potentially cause students, especially those in the non-Western schools, to refrain from speaking up, asking questions, and challenging others in discussions. Six contextual factors mediated the influence of the cultural factors. The findings were incorporated in a conceptual model. The conclusion seems justified that student-centered education is feasible in different cultural contexts, but across these contexts, processes and outcomes are likely to differ.

Early curricular exposure to interprofessional education (IPE) is intended to acclimatize health professional trainees to shared-care in the practice settings they will ultimately join. However, IPE activities typically reside outside actual organizational and social systems in which interprofessional care is delivered. We aimed to explore how pharmacist trainees experience collaborator and communicator competency roles during team-based workplace-based learning. Participants maintained written diaries reflecting on interprofessional collaboration and communication during an eight-week hospital clerkship. Diary entries and transcripts from semi-structured follow-up interviews were analyzed from the social constructivist perspective using reflective thematic analysis. Participant accounts of on-ward activities represented most collaborator and communicator roles outlined in pharmacy and interprofessional competency frameworks, but were predominantly between the pharmacist trainee and physicians. Pharmacist trainees did not routinely engage with other health professions on a daily basis. Additionally, reported encounters with other team members were typically information exchanges and not episodes of authentic interdependent or shared care. Interactions were almost completely devoid of perceived interpersonal or role conflict. These findings offer insight into how pharmacist trainees perceive and develop competencies for team-based care. Further work is required to understand how such limited scope of interprofessional communication and collaboration might ultimately impair quality patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. Methods: The authors followed a five‐step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. Results: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real‐world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. Discussion: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation. In #HPE we often conceptualize validity as an argument. But what is argumentation? From what guiding principles might HPE draw? @Midwest_MedPeds @DrDanSchumacher @erikwdriessen @LaraVarpio review argumentation theory to explore these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency—a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context—to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method: We conducted a mixed‐methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi‐author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task‐based and negotiated. Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point—the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step—the enacted and narrated approach to the game. Konopasky et al highlight the complex nature of agency in author teams. Interviews with first authors suggest three broad agency types: distributed (across team and resources), individual (first author) and collaborative (joint action). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical supervisors acknowledge that they sometimes allow trainees to fail for educational purposes. What remains unknown is how supervisors decide whether to allow failure in a specific instance. Given the high stakes nature of these decisions, such knowledge is necessary to inform conversations about this educationally powerful and clinically delicate phenomenon. 19 supervisors participated in semi-structured interviews to explore how they view their decision to allow failure in clinical training. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, the iteratively collected data and analysis were informed by theoretical sampling. Recalling instances when they considered allowing residents to fail for educational purposes, supervisors characterized these as intuitive, in-the-moment decisions. In their post hoc reflections, they could articulate four factors that they believed influenced these decisions: patient, supervisor, trainee, and environmental factors. While patient factors were reported as primary, the factors appear to interact in dynamic and nonlinear ways, such that supervisory decisions about allowing failure may not be predictable from one situation to the next. Clinical supervisors make many decisions in the moment, and allowing resident failure appears to be one of them. Upon reflection, supervisors understand their decisions to be shaped by recurring factors in the clinical training environment. The complex interplay among these factors renders predicting such decisions difficult, if not impossible. However, having a language for these dynamic factors can support clinical educators to have meaningful discussions about this high-stakes educational strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self‐regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high‐quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self‐, co‐, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice. Bransen et al. explore the concept of 'self' to argue that the health professions need to shift from striving to optimize self‐regulation to understanding how to effectively regulate across self‐, co‐, and shared‐regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution. Methods: In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals. Results: The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1–22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally. Conclusion: Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in professional practice might hinder initiation of student participation during international placements, and thereby limit workplace learning. This study explores how healthcare students overcome differences in professional practice during initiation of international placements. Twelve first-year physiotherapy students recorded individual audio diaries during the first month of international clinical placement. Recordings were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed following a template analysis approach. Team discussions focused on thematic interpretation of results. Students described tackling differences in professional practice via ongoing negotiations of practice between them, local professionals, and peers. Three themes were identified as the focus of students' orientation and adjustment efforts: professional practice, educational context, and individual approaches to learning. Healthcare students' initiation during international placements involved a cyclical process of orientation and adjustment, supported by active participation, professional dialogue, and self-regulated learning strategies. Initiation of student participation during international placements can be supported by establishing a continuous dialogue between student and healthcare professionals. This dialogue helps align mutual expectations regarding scope of practice, and increase understanding of professional and educational practices. Better understanding, in turn, creates trust and favors meaningful students' contribution to practice and patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusionsInternational Medical Programmes (IMPs) form a distinctive modality in medical education, with diverse student populations, English as a language of instruction and ‘globalized’ curricula. A lack of common understanding of IMPs’ purposes and role in the medical education landscape triggers critiques. This study aims to document the effects of different discourses used to justify the purpose of IMPs.We use a discourse analysis approach to explore the different ways in which the purposes of IMPs are constructed at the regulatory, institutional, and individual level, and how these discourses interact. The research situates in two IMPs, in the Netherlands and in Hungary. Key-informant interviews, policy documents, and scholarly literature form the archive.The purpose of IMPs is constructed discursively around three distinct narratives and associated practices: around serving the institutions that host them, around serving the (global) public interest, and around serving individual students. Co-existence and misalignments of these three discourses cause conflicting practices and confusion among stakeholders.This study illustrates how diverging perspectives on internationalization in medical education create tensions for learners and staff. Articulating a clear and explicit meaning to internationalization may reduce uncertainties, and may reinforce realistic expectations of what constitutes a good outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]