Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T00:59:29.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2.4 - Assessment of Undergraduates in Psychiatry

from Section 2 - The Undergraduate Psychiatry Curriculum: Planning and Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2022

By
Professor Brian Lunn
Edited by
Patrick Hughes  and
Julie Langan Martin
Patrick Hughes
Affiliation:
NHS Forth Valley
Julie Langan Martin
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access

Summary

The academic field of assessment research and development is developing rapidly. This presents both opportunity and threat in psychiatry, with developments such as the UK Medical Licensing Assessment and changes to assessment resultant on the current pandemic likely to have significant impact. The move to subjectivity and global assessment better suits assessment of psychiatry. This chapter reviews the current trends in assessment modalities and discusses potential developments, including the relevance of ‘big data’ in assessment.

Type
Chapter
Information
Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates , pp. 42 - 51
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bateman, J., Allen, M., Samani, D., Kidd, J., and Davies, D. (2013). Virtual patient design: Exploring what works and why. A grounded theory study. Medical Education. 47, 595–606.Google Scholar
Cohen-Schotanus, J. and van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2010). A standard setting method with the best performing students as point of reference: Practical and affordable. Medical Teacher. 32, 154–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Davier, A. A., Deonovic, B., Yudelson, M., Polyak, S. T., and Woo, A. (2019). Computational psychometrics approach to holistic learning and assessment systems. Frontiers in Education. 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, O. P., Harborne, A. C., and McManus, I. C. (2015). Assessment at UK medical schools varies substantially in volume, type and intensity and correlates with postgraduate attainment. BMC Medical Education. 15, 1–13.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (2020). Medical Licensing Assessment [Online] Available at: www.gmc-uk.org/education/medical-licensing-assessment (accessed 19 January 2021).Google Scholar
Harden, R. M. G., Downie, W. W., Stevenson, M., and Wilson, G. M. (1975). Assessment of clinical competence using objective structured examination. British Medical Journal. 1, 447–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, B. (2013). Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Medical Teacher. 35, 564–8.Google Scholar
Hodges, B. D., Hollenberg, E., McNaughton, N., Hanson, M. D., and Regehr, G. (2014). The psychiatry OSCE: A 20-year retrospective. Academic Psychiatry. 38, 26–34.Google Scholar
Hodges, B., Regehr, G., McNaughton, N., Tiberius, R., and Hanson, M. (1999). OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Academic Medicine. 74, 1129–34.Google Scholar
Kilgour, J. M. and Tayyaba, S. (2016). An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 21, 571–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konopasek, L., Norcini, J., and Krupat, E. (2016). Focusing on the formative: Building an assessment system aimed at student growth and development. Academic Medicine. 91 (11): 1492–7.Google Scholar
Lunn, B. (2011). Recruitment into psychiatry: An international challenge. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 45, 805–7.Google Scholar
Lunn, B. (2015). ‘Education in Psychiatry’, in: Bhugra, D. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 185–93.Google Scholar
McCrorie, P. and Boursicot, K. A. M. (2009). Variations in medical school graduating examinations in the United Kingdom: Are clinical competence standards comparable? Medical Teacher. 31: 2n.d–9.Google Scholar
Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine. 65: S63–S67.Google Scholar
Newble, D. (2016). Revisiting ‘The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students’. Medical Education. 50: 498–501.Google Scholar
NIHR | INVOLVE [Online] Available at: www.nihr.ac.uk/health-and-care-professionals/engagement-and-participation-in-research/involve-patients.htm (accessed 19 January 2021).Google Scholar
Oudkerk Pool, A., Govaerts, M. J. B., Jaarsma, D. A. D. C., and Driessen, E. W. (2018). From aggregation to interpretation: How assessors judge complex data in a competency-based portfolio. Advances in Health Sciences Education. n.d, 275–87.Google Scholar
Ramani, S., Könings, K. D., Ginsburg, S., van der Vleuten, and C. P. M. (2018). Twelve tips to promote a feedback culture with a growth mind-set: Swinging the feedback pendulum from recipes to relationships. Medical Teacher. 10, 1–7.Google Scholar
Sam, A. H., Field, S. M., Collares, C. F., et al. (2018). Very-short-answer questions: Reliability, discrimination and acceptability. Medical Education. 52, 447–55.Google Scholar
Sam, A. H., Hameed, S., Harris, J., and Meeran, K. (2016). Validity of very short answer versus single best answer questions for undergraduate assessment. BMC Medical Education. 16, 10–13.Google Scholar
Sam, A. H., Westacott, R., Gurnell, M., Wilson, R., Meeran, K., and Brown, C. (2019). Comparing single-best-answer and very-short-answer questions for the assessment of applied medical knowledge in 20 UK medical schools: Cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal Open. 9, 1–7.Google Scholar
Stalenhoef-Halling, B., van der Vleuten, C., Jaspers, T., and Fiolet, J. (1990). ‘The feasibility, acceptability and reliability of openended questions in a problem based learning curriculum’, in Hiemstra, R., Scherpbier, A., and Zwiestra, R. (Eds.), Teaching and Assessing Clinical Competence. Groningen: Boekwerk, pp. 1020–31.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2017). Medical licensing assessment will keep us ahead of the field. British Medical Journal. 356: j594.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. and Dickson, N. (2015). Working together to develop a medical licensing assessment: Findings from our engagement with UK medical schools.[Online] Available at: www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/Report_of_MLA_visits_to_medical_schools_v1.0.pdf_68172878.pdf (accessed 24 March 2022).Google Scholar
Swanson, D. B. and Roberts, T. E. (2016). Trends in national licensing examinations in medicine. Medical Education. 50, 101–14.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. A., Gurnell, M., Melville, C. R., Kluth, D. C., Johnson, N., and Wass, V. (2017). Variation in passing standards for graduation-level knowledge items at UK medical schools. Medical Education. 51, 612–20.Google Scholar
Tyrer, S. (2005). ‘Development of the OSCE: A College perspective’, in Rao, R. (Ed.), OSCEs in Psychiatry. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists/Gaskill, pp. 14–n.d.Google Scholar
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996). The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 1, 41–67.Google Scholar
Wass, V., Jones, R., and Van Der Vleuten, C. (2001). Standardized or real patients to test clinical competence? The long case revisited. Medical Education. 35, 321–5.Google Scholar
Wass, V. and Van Der Vleuten, C. (2004). The long case. Medical Education. 38, 1176–80.Google Scholar
Wright, S., Bradley, P., Jones, S., and Barton, R. (2009). ‘Generalisability study of a new Finals examination component – The MOSLER’, in AMEE 2009. Málaga: Association for Medical Education in Europe, p. S106.Google Scholar
Wrigley, W., Van Der Vleuten, C. P., Freeman, A., and Muijtjens, A. (2012). A systemic framework for the progress test: Strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide No. 71. Medical Teacher. 34, 683–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×