Assessing professional competence: From methods to programs

Department of Educational Development and Research, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Medical Education (Impact Factor: 3.2). 04/2005; 39(3):309-17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x
Source: PubMed


INTRODUCTION: We use a utility model to illustrate that, firstly, selecting an assessment method involves context-dependent compromises, and secondly, that assessment is not a measurement problem but an instructional design problem, comprising educational, implementation and resource aspects. In the model, assessment characteristics are differently weighted depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS: Of the characteristics in the model, we focus on reliability, validity and educational impact and argue that they are not inherent qualities of any instrument. Reliability depends not on structuring or standardisation but on sampling. Key issues concerning validity are authenticity and integration of competencies. Assessment in medical education addresses complex competencies and thus requires quantitative and qualitative information from different sources as well as professional judgement. Adequate sampling across judges, instruments and contexts can ensure both validity and reliability. Despite recognition that assessment drives learning, this relationship has been little researched, possibly because of its strong context dependence. ASSESSMENT AS INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN: When assessment should stimulate learning and requires adequate sampling, in authentic contexts, of the performance of complex competencies that cannot be broken down into simple parts, we need to make a shift from individual methods to an integral programme, intertwined with the education programme. Therefore, we need an instructional design perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH: Programmatic instructional design hinges on a careful description and motivation of choices, whose effectiveness should be measured against the intended outcomes. We should not evaluate individual methods, but provide evidence of the utility of the assessment programme as a whole.


Available from: Cees Van der Vleuten, Dec 09, 2015
Assessing professional competence: from methods to
Cees P M van der Vleuten & Lambert W T Schuwirth
INTRODUCTION We use a utility model to illustrate
that, firstl y, selecting an assessment method involves
context-dependent compromises, and secondly, that
assessment is not a measurement problem but an
instructional design problem, comprising educa-
tional, imp lementation and resource aspect s. In the
model, assessment characteristics are differently
weighted depending on the purpose and context of
the assessment.
MENTS Of the characteristics in the model, we focus
on reliability, validity and educational impact and
argue that they are not inherent qualities of any
instrument. Reliability depends not on structuring or
standardisation but on sampling. Key issues con-
cerning validity are authenticity and integration of
competencies. Assessment in medical education
addresses complex competencies and thus requires
quantitative and qualitative information from differ-
ent sources as well as professional judgement. Ade-
quate sampling across judges, instruments and
contexts can ensure both validity and reliability.
Despite rec ognition that assessment drives learning,
this relationship has been little researched, possibly
because of its strong context dependence.
assessment should stimulate learning and requires
adequate sampling, in authentic contexts, of the
performance of complex competencies that cannot
be broken down into simple parts, we need to make a
shift from individual methods to an integral pro-
gramme, intertwined with the education programme.
Therefore, we need an instructional design perspec-
RESEARCH Programmatic instructional design hin-
ges on a careful description and motivation of choi-
ces, whose effectiveness should be measured against
the intended outcomes. We should not evaluate
individual methods, but provide evidence of the
utility of the assessment programme as a whole.
KEYWORDS education, medical, undergraduate
*methods standards; educational measurement
*methods; professional comp etence *standards.
Medical Education 2005; 39: 309–317
Some year s ago we proposed a conceptual model for
defining the utility of an assessment method. The
model derived utility by multiplying a number of
criteria on which assessment instruments can be
Besides such classical criteria as reliability
and validity, the model included educational impact,
the acceptability of the method to the stakeholders
and the investment required in terms of resou rces. In
the model the criteria were weighted according to the
importance attached to each of them by a specific
user in a specific situation and this defined the utility
of the method. This means that the weights of the
criteria depended on how the importance of each of
the different criteria was perceived by those respon-
sible for assessment in a certain assessment situation
or assessment context.
Of course, this utility equation was merely intended
as a conceptual model and by no means as an
algorithm or new psychometric index. Neither were
Department of Educational Development and Research, University of
Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Correspondence: Cees P M van der Vleuten PhD, Department of
Educational Development and Research, PO Box 616, 6200 MD
Maastricht, The Netherlands. Tel: 00 31 43 388 1121;
Fax: 00 31 43 388 4140; E-mail:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317 309
Page 1
all possible criteria included in the model, such as
transparency, meaningfulness, cognitive complexity,
directness and fairness.
Regardless of which cri-
teria were included in the equation, the overrid ing
message th e model was intended to convey was that
choosing an assessment method inevitably entails
compromises and that the type of comp romise varies
for each specific assessment context. As an illustra-
tion, the weights attached to the criteria in a very
high stakes assessment, for instance a certifying
examination, will be very different from the distri-
bution of weights among the criteria when the
primary purpose of the assessment is to provide
feedback to students in an in-train ing context. A
second corollary of the ÔformulaÕ is that assessment is
not merely a measurement problem, as the vast
literature on reliability and validity seems to suggest,
but that it is also very muc h an instructional design
problem and includes educational, implementation
and resources aspects. From this perspective, the
utility model is useful, because it helps educators
make consider ed choices in selecting, constructing
and applying an assessm ent instrument.
In addition to its usefulness in deliberating on
individual assessment methods, the model can also
serve as an aid in the process of devising an overall
assessment programme for a whole course. In this
article, we will use the model for 2 purposes. Firstly, it
will help us to summarise some developments in
assessment that we regard as highly significant.
Secondly, building on those views, we will argue that
the model can serve as a guide to the design of
integral assessment programmes. With respect to the
first purpose, we will limit ourselves to the assessment
characteristics of reliability, validity and educational
impact. In discussing a more integral programmatic
approach to assessment, we will attempt to achieve a
conceptual shift so that instead of thinking about
individual assessment methods, we think about
assessment programmes.
For each of the first 3 criteria in the equation, we will
describe some developments that we think are
meaningful in the light of the future of assessment.
We will not highlight, advocate or propose any
individual (new) instrument, because we strongly
believe that assessment instruments are not goals in
The degree to which the var ious quality
criteria are attained is not an inherent, immutable
characteristic of a particular instrument.
example, a short, multiple-choice question examina-
tion will be unreliable for the assessment of a broad
domain and an objective structured clinical exam-
ination (OSCE) will not be valid when it assesses
trivial clinical activities in a postg raduate context.
There is no such thing as the reliability, the validity, or
any other absolute, immanent characteristic of any
assessment instrument. We will try to shed more light
on this issue in our deliberations below. The discus-
sion will focus on some empirical outcomes and
theoretical developments that we consider relevant
for further progress in assessment.
Reliability refers to the reproducibility of the scores
obtained from an assessment. It is generally
expressed as a coefficient ranging from 0 (no
reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability). Often 0.80 is
regarded as the minimal acceptable value, although it
may be lower or higher depending on the examina-
tion’s purpo se (for instance, it will have to be higher
for a licensing examination). Reliability can be
What is already known on this subject
The utility of an assessment method depends
on making a compromise between various
quality parameters.
What this study adds
Any method ) even those that are less struc-
tured and standardised ) may have utility,
depending on its use.
We need more methods that rely on
qualitative information and thus require pro-
fessional judgement.
Assessment is an educational design problem
that needs a programmati c approach.
Suggestions for further research
Future research could rep ort on evide nce for
the utility of integral assessment programmes.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 2
negatively affected by many sources of error or bias,
and research has provided conclusive evidence that,
if we want to increase reliability, we will have to
ensure that our sampling takes account of all these
unwanted so urces of variance. A good understanding
of the issues involved in sampling may offer us many
more degrees of freedom in test development.
The predominant condition affecting the reliability
of assessment is domain- or conten t-specificity,
because competence is highly dependent on context
or content. This means that we will only be able to
achieve reliable scores if we use a large sample across
the content of the subject to be tested.
If the
assessment involves other conditions with a potential
effect on reliability such as examiners and patients
careful samp ling across those conditions is equally
essential. With intelligent test designs, which sample
efficiently across conditions (such as using different
examiners for each station in an OSCE), reliable
scores will gener ally be obtained within a reasonable
testing time.
So far, this is nothing new. What is new, however, is
the recent insight that reliability is not conditional on
objectivity and standardisation . The fact that objec-
tivity and reliability are often confused was addressed
theoretically some time ago,
but the empirical
evidence is becoming convincingly clear now and
may point towards new directions in assessment. To
illustrate our point, let us look at the OSCE. The
OSCE was developed as an alternative to the then
prevailing subjective and unreliable clinical assess-
ment methods, such as vivas and clinical ratings. The
main perceived advantage of the OSCE was objectiv-
ity and standardisation, which were regarded as the
main underpinnings of its reliability. However, an
abundance of study evidence has since shown that
the reliability of an OSCE is contingent on careful
sampling, particularly across clinical content, and an
appropriate number of stations, whic h generally
means that several hours of testing time are nee-
What actually occurred was that the brevity of
clinical samples (leading to a larger sample overall
than in previous methods) and the fact that students
rotated through the stations (optimal sampling
across patients and examiners) led to more adequate
sampling, which in turn had a far greater impact on
reliability than any amount of standardisation could
have had. This finding is not unique to the OSCE. In
recent years many studies have demonstrated that
reliability can also be achieved with less standardised
assessment situations and more subjective evalua-
tions, provided the sampling is appropriate. Table 1
illustrates this by presenting reliability estimates for
several instruments with differing degrees of
Table 1 Reliability estimates of different assessment instruments as a function of testing time
Instrument Description
Reliability for different testing
1 hour 2 hours 4 hours 8 hours
Multiple choice*
Short stem and short menu of options 0.62 0.76 0.93 0.93
Patient management problem*
Simulation of patient, full scenarios 0.36 0.53 0.69 0.82
Key feature case (write-in)*
Short patient case vignette followed by
write-in answer
0.32 0.49 0.66 0.79
Oral examination
Oral examination based on patient cases 0.50 0.69 0.82 0.90
Long case examination
Oral examination based on previously
unobserved real patient
0.60 0.75 0.86 0.90
Simulated realistic encounters in round
robin format
0.54 0.69 0.82 0.90
Mini-clinical exercise (mini-CEX)à
Short follow-up oral examination based
on previously observed real patient
0.73 0.84 0.92 0.96
Practice video assessment
Selected patient)doctor encounters
from video recordings in actual practice
0.62 0.76 0.93 0.93
Incognito standardised patientsà
Real consultations scored by undetected
simulated patients 0.86
0.61 0.76 0.82 0.86
* One-facet all random design with items crossed with persons (pxi).
Two-facet all random design with judges (examiners) nested within items within persons (j:i:p).
à One-facet all random design with items nested within persons (i:p).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 3
standardisation. For comparative purposes, the reli-
ability estimates are expressed as a function of the
testing time needed.
The comparative data should not be interpreted too
strictly as only a single study was included for each
type of method and reliability estimations were based
on different designs across studies. For our discussi on
it is irrelevant to know the exact magnitude of the
reliability or which me thod can be hailed as the
ÔwinnerÕ. The important point is to illustrate that all
methods require substantial sampling and that
methods which are less structured or standardised,
such as the oral examination, the long case exam-
ination, the mini-clinical evaluation exercis e (mini-
CEX) and the incognito standardised patient meth-
od, can be entirely or almost as reliable as other more
structured and objective measures. In a recent review,
a similar conclusion was presented for global clinical
performance assessments.
They are not incl uded in
Table 1 as the unit of testing time is unavailable, but
a sufficiently reliable gl obal estimate of competence
requires somewhere between 7 and 11 ratings,
probably not requiring more than a few hours of
testing time. All these reliability studies show that
sampling remains the pivotal factor in achieving
reliable score s with any instrument and that there is
no direct connection between reliability and the level
of structuring or standardisation.
This insight has far-reaching consequences for the
practice of assessment. Basically, the message is that
no method is inherently unreliable and any method
can be sufficiently reliable, provided sampling is
appropriate across conditions of measurement. An
important consequence of this shift in the perspec-
tive on reliability is that there is no need for us to
banish from our assess ment toolbox instruments that
are rather more subjective or not perfectly standard-
ised, provided that we use those instruments sensibly
and expertly. Conversely, we should not be deluded
into thinking that as long as we see to it that our
assessment toolbox exclusively contains structured
and standardised instruments, the reliability of our
measurements will automatically be guaranteed.
Validity refers to whether an instrument actually does
measure what it is purported to. Newer developments
concerning assessment methods in relat ion to validity
have typically been associated with the desire to attain
a more direct assessment of clinical competence by
increasing the authenticity of the measurement. This
started in the 1960s with the assessment of Ôclinical
reasoningÕ by patient management problems and
continued with the introduction of the OSCE in the
1970s. Authenticity was achieved by offering candi -
dates simulated real world challenges, either on
paper, in computerised forms or in a laboratory
setting. Such assessment methods have passed
through m ajor developments and refinements of
The assessment of higher cognitive
abilities has progressed from the use of realistic
simulations to short and focused vignet tes which tap
into key decisions and the application of knowledge,
in which the response format (e.g. menu, write-in,
open, matching) is of minor importance. The OSCE
has similarly led to a wealth of research, from which
an extensive assessment technology has emerged.
However, on top of the rapid progress in those areas,
we see a number of interrelated developments, which
may have a marked impact on the validity of our
measurements in the future.
Firstly, we are likely to witness the continued progress
of the authenticity movement towards assessment in
the setting of day-to-day practice.
Whereas the
success of the OSCE was basically predicated on
moving assessment away from the workplace to a
laboratory-controlled environment by providing
authentic tasks in a standardised and objectified way,
today, insights into th e relationship between samp-
ling and reliability appear to have put us in a position
where we can move assessment back to the real world
of the workplace as a result of the development of less
standardised, but nevertheless reliable, methods of
practice-based assessment. Methods are presently
emerging that allow assessment of performance in
practice by enabling adequate sampling across dif-
ferent contexts and assessors. Methods of perform-
ance assessment include the mini-CEX,
work sampling,
video assessment
and the use of
incognito simulated patients.
Such methods are
also helpful in the final step of Miller’s competency
In this pyramid, assessment moves from
the Ôknows Õ stage via Ôknows howÕ (paper and com-
puter simulations) and Ôshows howÕ (performance
simulations such as the OSCE) to the final ÔdoesÕ level
of habitual performance in day-to-day practice.
A second development concerns the movement
towards th e integration of competencies.
tially, this movement follows insights from modern
educational theory, which postulates that learning is
facilitated when tasks are integrated.
programmes that are restricted to the Ôstackin gÕ of
components or subskills of competencies are less
effective in delivering competent professionals than
methods in which different task components are
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 4
presented and practised in an integrated fashion,
which creates conditions that are conducive to
transfer. This Ôwhole-taskÕ approach is reflected in the
current competency movement. A competency is the
ability to handle a complex professional task by
integrating the relevant cognitive, psychomotor and
affective skills. In educational practice we now see
curricula being built around such competencies or
However, in assessment we tend to persist in our
inclination to break down the comp etency that we
wish to assess into smaller units, which we then assess
separately in the conviction that mastery of the parts
will automa tically lead to competent performance of
the integrated whole. Reductionism in assess-
ment has also emerged from oversimplified skills-by-
method thinking,
in which the fundamental idea
was that for each skill a single (and only a single)
instrument could be developed and used. We con-
tinue to think in this way despite the fact that
experience has taught us the errors of our simplistic
thinking. For example, in the original OSCE, short,
isolated skills were assessed within a short time span.
Previous validity research has sounded clear warnings
of the drawbacks of such an approach. For example,
the classic patient management problem, which
consisted of breaking down the problem-solving
process into isolated steps, has been found to be a
not very sensitive method for detecting differences in
Another example can be derived from
OSCE research that has shown that more global
ratings provide a more faithful reflection of expertise
than detailed checklists.
Atomisation may lead to
trivialisation and may threaten validity and, therefore,
should be avoided. Recen t research that shows the
validity of global and holis tic judgement thus helps us
to avoid trivialisation. The competen cy movement is a
plea for an integrated approach to competence,
which respects the (holistic or tacit) nature of
expertise. Coles argues that the learning and asses-
sing of professional judgement is the essence of what
medical competence is about.
This means that,
rather than being a quality that augments wit h each
rising level of Miller’s pyramid, authenticity is present
at all level s of the pyramid and in all good assessment
methods. A good illustration of this is the way test
items of certifying examinations in the USA are
currently being written (
Compared with a few decades ago, today’s items are
contextual, vignette-based or problem-oriented and
require reasoning skills rather than straightforward
recall of facts. This contextualisation is considered an
important quality or validity indicator.
The validity
of any method of assessment could be improved
substantially if assessment designers would respect
the characteristic of authenticity. We can also reverse
the authenticity argument: when authenticity is not a
matter of simply climbing the pyramid but something
that should be realised at all levels of the pyramid, we
can also say that similar authentic information may
come from various sources within the pyramid. It is,
therefore, wise to use these multiple sources of
information from various methods to construct an
overall judgement by triangulating information
across these sources, a fact that supports the argu-
ment that we need multiple methods in order to
make a good job of assessment.
A final trend is also related to the competency
movement. The importance of general professional
competencies ) which are not unique to the medical
profession ) is acknowledged. These competencies
include the ability to work in a team, metacognitive
skills, pro fessional behaviour, the ability to reflect
and to carry out self-appraisal, etc. Although neither
the concepts themselves nor the search for ways to
assess them are new, there is currently a marked
tendency to place more and more emphasis on such
general competencies in education and, therefore, in
assessment. New methods are gaining popularity,
such as self-assessment,
peer assessment,
source feed back or 360-degree feedback
and port-
We see the growing prominence of general
competencies as a significant development, because it
will require a different assessment orientation with
potential implications for other areas of assessment.
Information gathering for the assessment of such
general comp etencies will increasingly be based on
qualitative, descriptive and narrative infor mation
rather than on, or in addition to, quantitative,
numerical data. Such q ualitative information cannot
be judged against a simple, pre-set standard. That is
why some form of professional evaluation will be
indispensable to ensure its appropriate use for
assessment purposes. This is a cha llenge to which
assessment developers will have to rise in the near
future. In parallel to what we have said about the
dangers of reductionism, the implications of the use
of qualitative information point to a similar respect
for holistic professional judgement on the part of the
assessor. As we move further towards the assessment
of complex competencies, we will have to rely more
on other, and probably more qualitative, sources of
information than we have been accustomed to and
we will come to rely more on professional judgement
as a basis for decision making about the quality and
the implicati ons of that information. The challenge
will be to make this decision making as rigorous as
possible without trivialising the content for
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 5
ÔobjectivityÕ reasons. There is much to be done in this
Impact on learning
The impact of assessmen t on learning has also been
termed Ôconsequential validityÕ,
which is incorpor-
ated in the formal definition of validity by the
American Educational Research Association.
prefer to use it as a separate criterion, simply because
of its importance in any balanced utility appraisal.
This brings us to 2 somewhat paradoxical obs erva-
The first observation is that the notion of the impact
of assessment on learning is gaining more and more
general accep tance. Many publications have acknow-
ledged th e powerful relationship between assessment
and learning. Recognition of the concept that
assessment is the driving force behind learning is
increasingly regarded as one of the principles of good
practice in assessment.
Unfortunately, this does not
mean that changes are easy to achieve in practice or
that changes in assessment will no longer be the last
item on the agenda of curriculum renewal.
The second observation is that there is a paucity of
publications that shed light on the relationship
between assessment and learning.
From our daily
experience in educational practice we are familiar
with some of the crucial issues in this respect: how to
achieve congruence between educational o bjectives
and assessment; how to provide and increase feed-
back from assessment; how to sustain formative
feedback; how to combine and balance formative and
summative assessment; how much assessment is
enough; how to spread assessment over time, etc.
Unfortunately, published information that can fur-
ther our thinking and progress in this area is hard to
come by.
An explanation of this scarcity may be that it is almost
impossible to study th e impact of assessment on
learning without knowing about the context of the
assessment. For example, a recent paper showed that
students’ performance on an OSCE station had a
much stronger relationship with the students’
momentary context (the rotation they were in) than
with their past experience with the subject.
concept that a characteristic of an assessment method
is not inherent in the method but depends on how
and in what context assessment takes place is even
more applicable in the case of its impact on learning
than for any of the other characteristics in the utility
equation. Similar methods may lead to widely
differing educational effects, depending on their use
and place in the overall assessment programme. This
means that we are badly in need of more studies to
address the issues mentioned above, research that
will inevitably require more specification of the
assessment context.
The paragraph on reliability indicate d that there are
no inherently inferior assessment methods and that
reliability depends on sampling. However, it is also
fair to admit that most of the assessment methods
commonly used within regular medical training
programmes are used unreliably. The section on
validity showed that we cannot expect a single
method to be able to cover all aspects of competen-
cies of the layers of Miller’s pyramid, but that we need
a blend of methods, some of which will be different
in nature, which may mean less numerical with less
standardised test taking conditions. Professional
judgement is important, both for the assessment tasks
that we design as well as for the assess or who
appraises task performance. As for the impact of
assessment on learning, we have made it clear that
any method of assessment can have any sort of
influence on learning (positive or negative),
depending on how it is used and in what context. It is
our view that the preceding discussion constitutes a
strong plea for a shift of focus regarding assessment,
that is, a shift away from individual assessment
methods for separate parts of competencies towards
assessment as a component that is inextricably woven
together with all the other aspects of a training
programme. From this point of view, the instruc-
tional design perspective, the conceptual utility
model should be applied at the level of the integral
assessment programme. Assessment then changes
from a psychometric problem to be solved for a single
assessment method to an educational design problem
that encompasses the e ntire curriculum. Keeping in
mind what is acceptable in a given context (i.e. level
of expertise of staff, past experience in assessment,
student and staff beliefs) and the available resources,
the challenge then becomes how to design an
assessment programme that fulfils all the assessment
criteria. This approach offers considerably more
degrees of freedom in the use of a variety of methods.
One could try and cover the entire competency
pyramid, deliberately incorporating ÔhardÕ measures
in some instances on reliability gro unds and ÔsofterÕ
ones in other instances in order to deliberately steer
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 6
learning in a certain direction. One can diversify the
selection of methods, using some that elicit verbal
expression and others that call for writing skills.
Instead of designing course-related assessments only,
one could think of longitudinal, course-independent
measures targeted at individual students’ growth or
personal development. The issue then is not whether
one uses Ôold-fashionedÕ or ÔmodernÕ methods of
assessment, but much more why and how we should
select this or that method from our toolbox in a given
situation. Trustworthy and credible answers will
ultimately determine the utility of the assessment.
A programmatic, instructional design approach to
assessment surpasses the autonomy of the individual
course developer or teacher. It requires central
planning and co-ordination and needs a well written
master plan. Essentially, this notion follows that of
modern curriculum design. No curriculum renewal
will be successful witho ut careful orchestration and
The same holds for an assessment
programme. Another likeness to curriculum design is
the need for periodic re-evaluation and re-design.
The effect of assessmen t on learning can be quite
unpredictable and may change over time. For exam-
ple, the way regulations are set or changed may result
in dramatic strategic effects for learners. This means
that ongoing evaluation and adjustment of the
assessment programme will be imperative.
We know that many psychometric issues are involved
in collating assessment information and combining
scores from different sources. We cannot say that the
use of multiple measures will automatically increase
reliability and validity. With every decision that is
made within an assessment programme, reliability is
at stake and decision errors are made and may
accumulate. When we combine information from
totally different sources, we may seem to be adding
apples to oranges in a way that will inevitably
complicate the evaluation of the validity. Yet making
pass or fail decisions is something that again
should be evaluated at the level of the programme.
We think that this too will require professional
judgement. We should move away from the
1-competence)1-m ethod approach to assessment.
A good assessment programme will incorporate
several competency elements and multip le sources of
information to evaluate those competencies on mul-
tiple occasions using credible standards. The infor-
mation obtained will have to be aggregated into a
final (promotion) decision. When all sources point in
the same direction, the information is consistent and
the decision is relatively straightforward. With con-
flicting information, decision making is more prob-
lematic and a defensible judgement will require
additional information, by obtaining more informa-
tion, by adding more decision makers, by a condi-
tional promotion decision or by postponing the
decision. Such a decision-making procedure bears far
greater resemblance to a qualitative approach that
continues to accu mulate information until saturation
is reached and a decision becomes trustworthy and
A good assessment programme should
have a feedback mechanism in place to ensure that
any final decision does not come as a total surprise to
the learner. If the latter is the case, it is indicative of a
failure of the feedback m echanism somewhere along
the way, which should be remedied.
In a programmatic, instructional design approach
to assessment, ÔsimpleÕ psychometric evaluation will
not suffice. We should probably start with more
and proper descriptions of such assessment pro-
grammes. To our knowledge, there are only a few
good examples of these,
and we definitely
need many more. These programme specifications
should motivate the choices that are made and
provide sufficient contextual information. From
these descriptions, commonalities could then be
inferred. What constitutes a good programme, what
factors contribute to it and what are the pitfalls?
How is information combined and how are deci-
sions made? Further empirical research could
investigate whether the intended programme does
or does not work in practice. Are the intended
learning effects actually being achieved? How do
the stakeholders perceive the programme? This
kind of research will be less psychometrically
oriented (although there are some good exam-
) and will probably bear more resemblance
to curriculum research.
It is our opinion that the assessment literature is
overly oriented towards the individual assessment
method and too preoccupied with exclusively psy-
chometric issues. We advocate the perspective that
any method can have utility, depending on its usage
and the programmatic context. There are no inher-
ently bad or good assessment methods. They are all
relative. What really matters is that the assessment
programme should be an integrated part of the
curriculum and this should be the main focus of our
attention and efforts. The crucial question concerns
the utility of the assessment programme as a whole.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 7
Contributors: both authors contributed to the views
expressed in this article. CvdV wrote the paper, assisted by
suggestions from LS.
Acknowledgements: none.
Funding: none.
Conflicts of interest: none.
Ethical approval: not applicable.
1 van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of profes-
sional competence: developments, research and
practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ 1996;1
2 Gielen S, Dochy F, Dierick S. Evaluating the conse-
quential validity of new modes of assessment: the influ-
ence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post- and
true assessment effects. In: Segers M, Dochy F, Cascallar
E, eds. Optimising New Modes of Assessment: in Search of
Qualities and Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers 2003.
3 Linn RL, Baker E, Dunbar SB. Complex, performance-
based assessment: expectations and validation criteria.
Educational Res 1991;16:1–21.
4 Messick S. The interplay of evidence and consequences
in the validation of performance assessments. Educa-
tional Res 1995;23:13–23.
5 Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. Changing
education, changing assessment, changing research.
Med Educ 2004;38:805–12.
6 Downing SM. The metric of medical education.
Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assess-
ment data. Med Educ 2003;37 (9):830–7.
7 Hodges B. Validity and the OSCE. Med Teach 2003;25
8 Swanson DB, Norman GR, Linn RL. Performance-
based assessment: lessons from the health professions.
Educational Res 1995;24 (5):5–11.
9 van der Vleuten CPM, Norman GR, de Graaff E. Pitfalls
in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Med
Educ 1991;25:110–8.
10 Petrusa ER. Clinical performance assessments. In:
Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, eds.
International Handbook for Research in Medical
Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
11 Williams RG, Klamen DA, McGaghie WC. Cognitive,
social and environmental sources of bias in clinical
performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2003;15
12 Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. The use of
clinical simulations in assessment. Med Educ 2003;37
13 Rethans JJ, Norcini JJ, Baron-Maldonado M et al. The
relationship between competence and performance:
implications for assessing practice performance. Med
Educ 2002;36 (10):901–9.
14 Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Arnold GK, Kimbal HR. The
mini-CEX (clinical evaluation exercise): a preliminary
investigation. Ann Intern Med 1995;123 :795–9.
15 Turnbull J, van Barneveld C. Assessment of clinical
performance: In-training evaluation. In: Norman GR,
van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI, eds. International
Handbook of Research in Medical Education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002;793–810.
16 Ram P, Grol R, Rethans JJ, Schouten B, van der
Vleuten CPM, Kester A. Assessment of general
practitioners by video observation of communicative
and medical performance in daily practice: issues of
validity, reliability and feasibility. Med Educ 1999;33
17 Gorter S, Rethans JJ, Scherpbier A et al. How to
introduce incognito patients into outpatient clinics of
specialists in rheumatology. Med Teach 2001;23
18 Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills compet-
ence performance. Acad Med 1990;65 (9):63–7.
19 Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing
professional competence. JAMA 2002;287 (2):226–35.
20 Harden RM. Developments in outcome-based educa-
tion. Med Teach 2002;24 (2):117–20.
21 Smith SR, Dollase RH, Boss JA. Assessing students’
performance in a competency-based curriculum. Acad
Med 2003;78:97–107.
22 van Merrie
nboer JJG. Training Complex Cognitive Skills.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications 1997.
23 Swanson DB, Norcini JJ, Grosso LJ. Assessment of
clinical competence: written and computer-based
simulations. Assess Eval Higher Educ 1987;12 (3):220–
24 Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick R, Szalay D. Comparing
the psychometric properties of checklists and global
rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-
format examination. Acad Med 1998;73 (9):993–7.
25 Coles C. Developing professional judgement. J Contin
Educ Health Prof 2002;22 (1):3–10.
26 Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case SM, Galbraith R,
Swanson DB, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical
school examinations. Acad Med 2002;77 (2):156–61.
27 Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D. The use of self-, peer
and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Stud-
ies Higher Educ 1999;24 (3):331–50.
28 Norcini JJ. The metric of medical education: peer
assessment of competence. Med Educ 2003;37 (6):539–
29 Lockyer J. Multisource feedback in the assessment of
physician competencies. J Contin Educ Health Prof
30 Snadden D. Portfolios attempting to measure the
unmeasurable? Med Educ 1999;33:478–9.
31 Driessen EW, van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth L, van
Tartwijk J, Vermunt JD. The use of qualitative research
criteria for portfolio assessment as an alternative for
reliability evaluation: a case study. Med Educ
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 8
32 Anonymous. Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing. Washington DC: American Educational
Research Association 1999.
33 Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. Assessing health pro-
fessionals. Med Educ 2002;36:800–4.
34 Mennin SP, Kalishman S. Student assessment. Acad
Med 1998;73 (9):S46–54.
35 Gibbs G, Simpson C. How Assessment Influences Student
Learning a Conceptual Overview: Heerlen, the
Netherlands: Open University. Centre for Higher
Education Practice 2002.
36 Chibnall JT. The influence of testing context and
clinical rotation order on student OSCE performance.
Acad Med 2004;79 (6):597–601.
37 Davis WK, White CB. Managing the curriculum and
managing change. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten
CPM, Newble DI, eds. International Handbook of Research
in Medical Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers 2002;917–44.
38 Epstein RM. Comprehensive Assessment Manual. Roches-
ter, New York: University of Rochester School of
Medicine and Dentistry 2001.
39 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Educa-
tion. Outcome project.
Outcome/. Last accessed 25 January 2005.
40 Hays RB, Fabb WE, van der Vleuten CPM. Reliability of
the fellowship examination of the Royal Australian
College of General Practitioners. Teach Learn Med
41 Wass V, McGibbon D, van der Vleuten C. Composite
undergraduate clinical examinations: how should the
components be combined to maximise reliability? Med
Educ 2001;35:326–30.
42 Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LJ, Webster GD. Reli-
ability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice ques-
tion and patient management problem item formats in
assessment of clinical competence. Med Educ
43 Hatala R, Norman GR. Adapting the key features
examination for a clinical clerkship Med Educ
44 Swanson DB. A measurement framework for perform-
ance-based tests. In: Hart I, Harden R, eds, Further
Developments in Assessing Clinical Competence. Montreal:
Can-Heal publications 1987;13–45.
45 Wass V, Jones R, van der Vleuten C. Standardised or
real patients to test clinical competence? The long case
revisited. Med Educ 2001;35:321–5.
46 van der Vleuten CPM, van Luijk SJ, Swanson DB. Reli-
ability (Generalisability) of the Maastricht Skills Test. Pro-
ceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Research
in Medical Education (RIME). Chicago: American
Association for Medical Colleges 1988.
47 Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS. The mini-
CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Ann Intern
Med 2003;138 (6):476–481.
48 Gorter S, Rethans JJ, van der Heijde D et al. Repro-
ducibility of clinical performance assessment in prac-
tice using incognito standardised patients. Med Educ
2002;36 (9):827–32.
Received 1 March 2004; editorial comments to authors
4 May 2004; accepted for publication 19 July 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd MEDICAL EDUCATION 2005; 39: 309–317
Page 9
  • Source
    • "It must include the problems and difficulties found in this process. For this reason, a portfolio designed as a " programmatic assessment " of an integrated clinical placement, as proposed by Van derVleuten & Schuwirth (2005) has sufficient evidence of validity to support a specific interpretation of student scores around passing a clinical placement, although with some modest precision in some competencies that could be reduced focussing more on feedback and supervision. (Roberts et al, 2014)Additionally, each month we hold a " round " in which students talk and discuss their cases together, and show the problems they had, including ethical issues. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Institutional assessment must be distinguished from the assessment of learning. Traditionally, assessment is reduced to institutional assessment: that is, to give a mark depending on the achievement of knowledge instead of focusing in the student’s learning. However, I propose (to remember) that: 1) (Formative) assessment is part of learning; 2) Reflective learning (and reflective skills) is/are a part of assessment. This implies a process of continuous evaluation instead of summative evaluation, for example, through an exam or a similar procedure. So, I agree with the idea that assessment "is not a measurement problem but an instructional design problem."To clarify what assessment is, we have to discuss several interlinked aspects (validity, reliability and fairness), which are connected to questions that must be answered: When is the assessment considered valid? How do we assess? What do we assess? Some ideas to answer these questions may include the need to provide space (s) and time (s) to reflect on the learning (as a way of learning and as a skill to be acquired), which in turn implies a multiplicity of assessments and/or reflection about learning. This should also include a variety of assessments: self-assessment, peer-assessment, team-assessment, and (external) assessment. And last, but not least: as it is said, reflection should be considered not only a skill but a part of learning. Reflection about learning is an exercise that promotes life-long learning (including that among future lawyers). A reflection about context and experience is the first step for future professional action. The benefits of experiencing autonomy and reflection are the same in a real or in realistic environments. But the experience of responsibility requires a real environment.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016
  • Source
    • "It has been such an honour to read the assessment papers in legal education that were written with an earlier paper of mine (C. P. Van der Vleuten & Schuwirth, 2005) as a frame of reference. The papers provide an excellent insight in a number of assessment practices in different law schools. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: It has been such an honour to read the assessment papers in legal education that were written with an earlier paper of mine (C. P. Van der Vleuten & Schuwirth, 2005) as a frame of reference. The papers provide an excellent insight in a number of assessment practices in different law schools. Very striking were the similarities of the issues that are discussed from the legal domain to my own domain, the field of medicine. The papers are addressing notions of reflections, reflective practice, the importance of learning (and assessing) in context (either simulated or real) developing professional competences, definitions of professional competence, the relevance of general skills (professionalism, ethics, values, altruism, empathy, client-centeredness, managing themselves and others in work), and new approaches to assessment (journals, portfolios, extracted examples of work, observation, think-aloud in practice and holistic approaches to assessment). All these notions completely resonate with developments in the medical domain. For this contribution I thought of summarizing some recent developments in the medical domain having relevance to all these topics: competency frameworks, assessment of performance in context, reflection, and programmatic assessment. This is meant merely as an informative mirror on what happens in this other domain.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016
  • Source
    • "The twofold summative assessment strategy is based on the distinction between the concept of 'competency' and 'professional competence' (International Confederation of Midwives, 2011; Epstein and Hundert, 2002). The development of professional competence requires a programmatic view on learning and assessment across different workplaces (van der Vleuten and Schuwirth, 2005; van der Vleuten et al., 2012). The integrated workplace learning model, and its inherent learning instrument, revolves around the continuous collection of written information by scaffolding reflection with feedback from all stakeholders involved in the workplace learning process. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Workplace learning plays a crucial role in midwifery education. Twelve midwifery schools in Flanders (Belgium) implemented a new competency framework and aimed at implementing a more standardized and evidence-based method to learn and assess competencies, as well as to guide continuous competency development in practice. This paper describes the introduction of 'Embo's continuous workplace learning model', a holistic and competency-based method that integrates all workplace learning components. Available research evidence helps concluding the learning model is a feasible approach to organize workplace learning in such a way that continuous professional competency development is achieved.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Midwifery
Show more