Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct;5(5):303-7.
doi: 10.1007/s40037-016-0295-z.

On the issue of costs in programmatic assessment

Affiliations

On the issue of costs in programmatic assessment

Cees P M van der Vleuten et al. Perspect Med Educ. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Programmatic assessment requires labour and cost intensive activities such as feedback in a quantitative and qualitative form, a system of learner support in guiding feedback uptake and self-directed learning, and a decision-making arrangement that includes committees of experts making a holistic professional judgment while using due process measures to achieve trustworthy decisions. This can only be afforded if we redistribute the resources of assessment in a curriculum. Several strategies are suggested. One is to introduce progress testing as a replacement for costly cognitive assessment formats in modules. In addition, all assessments should be replaced by assessment formats that are maximally aligned with the learning tasks. For performance-based assessment, OSCEs should be sparsely used, while education and work-embedded assessment should be maximized as part of the routine of ongoing instruction and assessment. Information technology may support affordable feedback strategies, as well as the creation of a paper trail on performance. By making more dramatic choices in the way we allocate resources to assessment, the cost-intensive activities of programmatic assessment may be realized.

Keywords: Cost; Programmatic assessment; Resources.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestC.P.M. van der Vleuten and S. Heeneman state that they have no competing interest.

References

    1. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478–485. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LK, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205–214. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.652239. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Govaerts MJB, Heeneman S. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach. 2015;37(7):641–646. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.973388. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254. - DOI
    1. Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Schuwirth L, van Tartwijk J, Vermunt J. The use of qualitative research criteria for portfolio assessment as an alternative to reliability evaluation: a case study. Med Educ. 2005;39(2):214–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02059.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources