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 Jul-Sep;28(3):113-120.
doi: 10.1016/j.tcmj.2016.06.001. Epub 2016 Jul 2.

Conceptualizing workplace based assessment in Singapore: Undergraduate Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise experiences of students and teachers

Sabrina Lau Yanting  1 , Annushkha Sinnathamby  1 , DaoBo Wang  1 , Moses Tan Mong Heng  1 , Justin Leong Wen Hao  1 , Shuh Shing Lee  2 , Su Ping Yeo  2 , Dujeepa D Samarasekera  2
Affiliations

Conceptualizing workplace based assessment in Singapore: Undergraduate Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise experiences of students and teachers

Sabrina Lau Yanting et al. Tzu Chi Med J. 2016 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: The Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) is one of the most commonly used clinical assessment tools to provide learner feedback to drive learning. High quality constructive feedback promotes development and improves clinical competency. However, the effectiveness of feedback has not been objectively evaluated from the learners' and assessors' points of view, especially in Asia, where the nature of the student-tutor relationship is relatively hierarchical. This study seeks to compare the strengths, limitations, and feedback of the mini-CEX between assessors and students.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 275 senior medical undergraduates at the National University of Singapore and 121 clinical tutors from seven restructured hospitals in Singapore. Data was collected via a self-administered questionnaire. Univariate analysis was used to determine the prevalence of responses, as well as differences between tutors and students.

Results: The mini-CEX provided immediate feedback and timely correction of mistakes. However, effective administration was limited by inter-tutor variability and lack of time. Students reported being receptive to feedback, but tutors disagreed and felt that students were resistant to negative feedback. Additionally, students felt that their performance was compared unfairly against more senior students, although the tutors felt otherwise.

Conclusion: The mini-CEX is an effective assessment tool, but is limited by barriers to administration and evaluation. Differing opinions and expectations between tutors and students could provide an interesting focal point for future studies.

Keywords: Mini-CEX; Perspectives on clinical assessment; Workplace-based assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: none.

References

    1. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33:206–14. - PubMed
    1. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85. - PubMed
    1. Fernando N, Cleland J, McKenzie H, Cassar K. Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. BMC Med Educ. 2008;42:89–95. - PubMed
    1. Nair BR, Alexander HG, McGrath BP, Parvathy MS, Kilsby EC, Wenzel J, et al. The mini clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) for assessing clinical performance of international medical graduates. Med J Aust. 2008;189:159–61. - PubMed
    1. Alves de Lima A, van der Vleuten C. Mini-CEX: a method integrating direct observation and constructive feedback for assessing professional performance. Rev Argent Cardiol. 2011;79:531–6.

LinkOut - more resources