Premium
Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
Author(s) -
Craig F. Morris,
Alison Deborah Bullock,
Belfield,
Butterfield
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x
Subject(s) - grading (engineering) , strengths and weaknesses , trainer , quality assurance , medical education , consistency (knowledge bases) , psychology , relevance (law) , medicine , external quality assessment , computer science , political science , engineering , social psychology , civil engineering , pathology , artificial intelligence , programming language , law
This paper describes a study designed to evaluate assessment in postgraduate dental education in England, identifying strengths and weaknesses and focusing specifically on its relevance, consistency and cost‐effectiveness. Methods A four‐phase qualitative method was used: a mapping of current career paths, assessment policy, and issues (phase 1); more detailed studies of the practice of assessment for a range of courses, and the systemic/management perspective of assessment (i.e. quality assurance) (phases 2 and 3), and analysis and reporting (phase 4). Data were analysed from documents, interviews, group consultations and observations. Results and discussion Five key issues may be distilled from the findings: (i) lack of formal assessment of general professional training; (ii) trainer variation in assessment; (iii) the extent to which assessments are appropriate indicators of later success; (iv) the relationship between assessment and patient care, and (v) data to assess the costs of assessment. Conclusion Current assessment procedures might be improved if consideration is given to: assessment which supports an integrated period of general professional training; training for trainers and inspection procedures to address variation; more authentic assessments, based directly on clinical work and grading cases and posts, and better data on allocation of resources, in particular clinicians’ time given to assessment.