Search

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.

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]

Purpose: To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go. Methods: Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps. Results: Between 2012–2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73–402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors. Discussion: This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data. [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]

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]

Introduction: When medical education programs have difficulties recruiting or retaining clinical teachers, they often introduce incentives to help improve motivation. Previous research, however, has shown incentives can unfortunately have unintended consequences. When and why that is the case in the context of incentivizing clinical teachers remains unclear. The purposes of this study, therefore, were to understand what values and motivations influence teaching decisions; and to delve deeper into how teaching incentives have been perceived. Methods: An interpretive description methodology was used to improve understanding of the development and delivery of teaching incentives. A purposeful sampling strategy identified a heterogenous sample of clinical faculty teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate contexts. Sixteen semi‐structured interviews were conducted and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative process to develop a thematic structure that accounts for general trends and individual variations. Results: Clinicians articulated interrelated and dynamic personal and environmental factors that had linear, dual‐edged and inverted U‐shaped impacts on their motivations towards teaching. Barriers were frequently rationalized away, but cumulative barriers often led to teaching attrition. Clinical teachers were motivated when they felt valued and connected to their learners, peers, leadership, and/or the medical education community. While incentives aimed at producing these connections could be perceived as supportive, they could also negatively impact motivation if they were impersonal, inequitable, inefficient, or poorly framed. Discussion/Conclusion: These findings reinforce the literature suggesting that it is necessary to proceed with caution when labeling any particular factor as a motivator or barrier to teaching. They take us deeper, however, towards understanding how and why clinical teachers' perceptions are unique, dynamic and fluid. Incentive schemes can be beneficial for teacher recruitment and retention, but must be designed with nuance that takes into account what makes clinicians feel valued if the strategy is to do more good than harm. When do incentives backfire? Wisener et al. explore how schemes intended to support clinicians in their teaching roles should be crafted with care given their complex – and at times surprising – influences on motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future, thereby informing research and educational practice. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner. Method: In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall. Results: The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of the total articles published (n = 30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD = 35.85, median = 33), and there was an overall 2620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD = 67.2, median = 41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n = 189; 19%). Twenty-one types of knowledge synthesis were identified, the most prevalent being systematic reviews (n = 341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n = 88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD = 107.12, median = 19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD = 37.59, median = 6). Conclusions: There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education's evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Construct: The globalization of healthcare has been accentuated by the export of health professional curricula overseas. Yet intact translation of pedagogies and practices devised in one cultural setting may not be possible or necessarily appropriate for alternate environments. Purposeful examination of workplace learning is necessary to understand how the source or "home" program may need adapting in the distributed or "host" setting. Background: Strategies to optimize cross-border medical education partnerships have been largely focused on elements of campus-based learning. Determining how host clinical supervisors approach assessment in experiential settings within a different culture and uphold the standards of home programs is relevant given the influence of context on trainees' demonstrated competencies. In this mixed-methods study, we sought to explore assessor judgments of student workplace-based performance made by preceptors sharing a pharmacy curriculum in Canada and Qatar. Approach: Using modified Delphi consensus technique, we asked clinical supervisors in Canada (n = 18) and in Qatar (n = 14) to categorize trainee performance as described in 16 student vignettes. The proportion of ratings for three levels of expectation (exceeds, meets, or below) was calculated and within-country group consensus achieved if the level of agreement reached 80%. Between-country group comparisons were measured using a chi-square statistic. We then conducted follow-up semi-structured interviews to gain further perspectives and clarify assessor rationale. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: The threshold for between-country group differences in assessor impressions was met for only two of the 16 student vignettes. Compared to Canadian clinical supervisors, relatively more preceptors in Qatar judged one described student as meets rather than exceeds expectations and one as meets rather than falls below expectations. Analysis of follow-up interviews exploring how culture may inform variations in assessor judgments identified themes associated with the profession, organization, learner, and supervisor performance theories but not their particular geographic context. Clinical supervisors in both countries were largely aligned in expectations of student knowledge, skills, and behaviors demonstrated in patient care and multidisciplinary team interactions. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that variation in student assessment was more frequent among clinical supervisors within the same national context than any differences identified between the two countries. In these program settings, national sociocultural norms did not predict global assessor impressions or competency-specific judgments; instead, professional and organizational cultures were more likely to inform student characterizations of performance in workplace-based settings. Further study situated within the specific experiential learning contexts of cross-border health professional curricula is assuredly warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In shared decision‐making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM. Methods: A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM. Results: Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons. Conclusions: Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A new form of internationalization has been trending upward in the medical education realm: crossborder medical curriculum partnerships established to deliver the same, or adapted, curriculum to groups of geographically separated students. This study aims to investigate crossborder medical curriculum partnerships by exploring the experiences of teachers at the recipient institution who have a key role in delivering the program. Methods: From four pioneering recipient medical schools, 24 teachers participated in a Q-sort study. Each participant rank-ordered 42 statements about teaching in a crossborder medical curriculum on a scale from −5 (indicating strong disagreement) to +5 (indicating strong agreement). The authors conducted a "by-person" factor analysis to uncover distinct patterns in the ranking of statements, using the statistical results and participants' comments about their Q sorts to interpret these patterns and translate them into distinct viewpoints. Results: Three viewpoints emerged, reflecting: (1) a feeling of connectedness with the partner institution, trust in the quality of the curriculum, and appreciation of interinstitutional relationships; (2) the partnership's attractiveness because of the career opportunities it offers; and (3) concerns over the quality of graduates because of doubts about the appropriateness of the didactic model and insufficient attention to local healthcare needs, and over the practical feasibility of such partnerships. Conclusions: The three viewpoints identified revealed a pallet of views on how host teachers might experience their work. It shows the heterogeneous features of this group and seems to counterbalance reports that they are feeling "deprived" from their role as teacher. Two viewpoints featured an appreciation of interinstitutional relationships and of the partnership, especially when perceiving a degree of autonomy. Partners can capitalize on all different viewpoints by deploying procedure and policies to raise the quality of education delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crossborder curriculum partnerships are a relatively new and fast-growing form of internationalization in which the curriculum that has been developed by one institution (the home institution) crosses borders and is implemented in another institution (the host institution). These partnerships aim to provide comparable learning experiences to the students in both institutions and are driven by a variety of motives, such as strengthening international networks, increasing financial gains, and stimulating research spinoffs. Although popular, crossborder curriculum partnerships are also criticized for their potentially low educational quality, failing to address fundamental differences in teaching and learning between the home and host institutions, and not addressing the educational needs of the host country’s health care system. Our aim is to provide guidance to those considering or engaged in designing, developing, managing, and reviewing a crossborder curriculum partnership or other forms of international educational partnerships in medical education. Drawing from research, personal, and institutional experiences in this area, we listed twelve tips categorized into four themes, which contribute to the establishment of sustainable partnerships that can withstand the aforementioned criticism. [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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including Medical Education; health professions education (HPE); and preprint.

Background: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is a commonly used method of assessing clinical competence at various levels, including at the postgraduate level. How the OSCE impacts on learning in higher education is poorly described. In this study, we evaluated the perceptions of postgraduate trainees regarding the impact of the OSCE on their study and clinical behavior. Methods: We employed an explorative qualitative research design by conducting focus group discussions with 41 pediatric postgraduate trainees at the College of Health Science, Makerere University. A semi-structured tool was used to obtain the views and experiences of the trainees. Transcripts from the discussion were analyzed in an iterative manner using thematic content analysis. Results: The trainees reported the OSCEs as a fair and appropriate tool for assessing clinical competency at the postgraduate level. However, they noted that whereas OSCEs assess a broad range of skills and competencies relevant to their training, there were areas that they did not adequately assess. In particular, OSCEs did not adequately assess in-depth clinical knowledge or detailed history-taking skills. Overall, the majority of the trainees reported that the OSCEs inspired them to study widely and improve their procedural and communication skills. Conclusion: OSCEs are a useful tool for assessing clinical competencies in postgraduate education. However, the perceived limitations in their ability to assess complex skills raises concerns about their use as a standalone mode of assessment at the postgraduate level. Future studies should evaluate how use of OSCEs in combination with other assessment tools impacts on learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context It is widely acknowledged that assessment can affect student learning. In recent years, attention has been called to 'programmatic assessment', which is intended to optimise both learning functions and decision functions at the programme level of assessment, rather than according to individual methods of assessment. Although the concept is attractive, little research into its intended effects on students and their learning has been conducted. Objectives This study investigated the elements of programmatic assessment that students perceived as supporting or inhibiting learning, and the factors that influenced the active construction of their learning. Methods The study was conducted in a graduate-entry medical school that implemented programmatic assessment. Thus, all assessment information, feedback and reflective activities were combined into a comprehensive, holistic programme of assessment. We used a qualitative approach and interviewed students ( n = 17) in the pre-clinical phase of the programme about their perceptions of programmatic assessment and learning approaches. Data were scrutinised using theory-based thematic analysis. Results Elements from the comprehensive programme of assessment, such as feedback, portfolios, assessments and assignments, were found to have both supporting and inhibiting effects on learning. These supporting and inhibiting elements influenced students' construction of learning. Findings showed that: (i) students perceived formative assessment as summative; (ii) programmatic assessment was an important trigger for learning, and (iii) the portfolio's reflective activities were appreciated for their generation of knowledge, the lessons drawn from feedback, and the opportunities for follow-up. Some students, however, were less appreciative of reflective activities. For these students, the elements perceived as inhibiting seemed to dominate the learning response. Conclusions The active participation of learners in their own learning is possible when learning is supported by programmatic assessment. Certain features of the comprehensive programme of assessment were found to influence student learning, and this influence can either support or inhibit students' learning responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During workplace based learning students develop professional competences and an appropriate performance. To gain insight in the learning process and to evaluate competences and performance, assessment tools are essential and need to be of good quality. We aimed to construct a competence inventory applicable as an instrument to measure the content validity of workplace based assessment tools, such as portfolio. Methods: A Delphi study was carried out based on the CanMEDS Roles Framework. In three rounds, experts (N = 25-30) were invited to score the key competences per CanMEDS role on relevance (6-point Likert-scale), and to comment on the content and formulation bearing in mind its use in workplace based assessment. A descriptive analysis of relevances and comments was performed. Results: Although all competences were scored as relevant, many comments pointed at a lack of concrete, transparent and applicable descriptions of the key competences for the purpose of assessment. Therefore, the CanMEDS roles were reformulated in this Delphi procedure as concrete learning outcomes, observable and suitable for workplace based assessment. Conclusions: A competence based inventory, ready for validating workplace based assessment tools, was constructed using a Delphi procedure and based on a clarification and concretisation of the CanMEDS roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods Thirty-eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed-methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey ( n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors ( n = 11). Individual semi-structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self-assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1990, Miller wrote that no tools were available for assessment of what a learner does when functioning independently at the clinical workplace (Miller 1990). Since then portfolios have filled this gap and found their way into medical education, not only as tools for assessment of performance in the workplace, but also as tools to stimulate learning from experience. We give an overview of the content and structure of various types of portfolios, describe the potential of electronic portfolios, present techniques and strategies for using portfolios as tools for stimulating learning and for assessment, and discuss factors that influence the success of the introduction. We conclude that portfolios have a lot of potential but that their introduction also often leads to disappointment, because they require a new perspective on education from mentors and learners and a significant investment of time and energy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. With this change I Perspectives on Medical Education i transitions from double-blind to a single-blind peer review, such that reviewers will be aware of the identity of the authors, but the peer reviewers' identities will be unknown to the authors. [Extracted from the article]

Context The portfolio is becoming increasingly accepted as a valuable tool for learning and assessment. The validity of portfolio assessment, however, may suffer from bias due to irrelevant qualities, such as lay-out and writing style. We examined the possible effects of such qualities in a portfolio programme aimed at stimulating Year 1 medical students to reflect on their professional and personal development. In later curricular years, this portfolio is also used to judge clinical competence. Methods We developed an instrument, the Portfolio Analysis Scoring Inventory, to examine the impact of form and content aspects on portfolio assessment. The Inventory consists of 15 items derived from interviews with experienced mentors, the literature, and the criteria for reflective competence used in the regular portfolio assessment procedure. Forty portfolios, selected from 231 portfolios for which ratings from the regular assessment procedure were available, were rated by 2 researchers, independently, using the Inventory. Regression analysis was used to estimate the correlation between the ratings from the regular assessment and those resulting from the Inventory items. Results Inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.46 to 0.87. The strongest predictor of the variance in the regular ratings was ‘quality of reflection’ (R 0.80; R2 66%). No further items accounted for a significant proportion of variance. Irrelevant items, such as writing style and lay-out, had negligible effects. Conclusions The absence of an impact of irrelevant criteria appears to support the validity of the portfolio assessment procedure. Further studies should examine the portfolio's validity for the assessment of clinical competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to reflect on one's own action is seen as an important skill for a doctor. A thorough introduction of the portfolio planned in the early stages of theft studies seems to be the way to train medical students in reflection. This article describes the use of portfolios in early undergraduate medical training. The literature on portfolios suggests three aspects that are crucial for the effectiveness of portfolios: structure, coaching and assessment. The portfolio systern was designed by transposing the experience with portfolio systems outside and inside medical training to a situation of firstyear medical students. During the academic year 2001-02 242 first-year medical students compiled a portfolio. Student experience was collected by semi-structured interviews. The majority of students were of the opinion that analysing one's competences in a portfolio was instructive and meaningful. With regard to learning how to reflect and recognize learning needs, however, mentor coaching proved to be necessary. The results thus far show that the portfolio is a worthwhile addition to existing assessment and learning tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the importance of health professions education in producing professionals who will provide the best health care to the population. Also cited are the need to create regulations and positive attitudes benefiting international travel, global meetings, and global health, as well as the need for elected officials to ensure that international health educational activities and collaborations should be freely allowed.