Premium
Validity of portfolio assessment: which qualities determine ratings?
Author(s) -
Driessen Erik W,
Overeem Karlijn,
Van Tartwijk Jan,
Van Der Vleuten Cees P M,
Muijtjens Arno M M
Publication year - 2006
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 - 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02550.x
Subject(s) - portfolio , psychology , educational measurement , medline , medical education , medicine , pedagogy , economics , curriculum , political science , financial economics , law
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; R 2 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.