THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE WE PASS WITH A AS COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IN IMPLEMENTING COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT: A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.66595

Yoyo Suhoyo(1*), Gandes Retno Rahayu(2)

(1) Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: A practical approach to assist teachers of medical and health profession education in designing and implementing competency-based assessment (CBA) is needed. This study aimed to investigate the acceptability of the method we developed, namely WE PASS with A as a comprehensive approach in designing and implementing CBA system.

Methods: We invited medical and health profession teachers from various institutions in Indonesia who voluntarily join 4 times national workshops of the WE PASS with A. Workshop was conducted in two days (14 hours).  Eighty-three teachers have participated in this study. Six closed questions using 5 Likert scales and 2 open questions was given at the end of each workshop.

Results: Most teachers agreed that WE PASS with A approach covers all necessary principles for designing comprehensive assessment, helps them to understand better step by step, provides clear guideline, and can be learnt easily. However, most of them were doubt that their institutions have applied all steps in the WE PASS with A approach and can apply this approach. Teachers like the WE PASS with A approach because the approach is comprehensive, systematic, applicable, structured, simple, understood and remembered, measurable, ideal and accountable. Giving more examples, longer time to explain, more practice, socialization, and investigating the implementation were believed can improve the approach.

Conclusion: The WE PASS with A can be accepted by the teachers of medical and health profession education in Indonesia. Future study needed to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of this approach.


Keywords


competency-based, assessment, medical and health profession education

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Wass V, Archer J. Assessing learners. Medical Education Theory and Practice. 2011;1:229-56.
  2. Shumway JM, Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 25: The assessment of learning outcomes for the competent and reflective physician. Medical teacher. 2003 Nov 1;25(6):569-84.
  3. Boursicot K, Etheridge L, Setna Z, Sturrock A, Ker J, Smee S, Sambandam E. Performance in assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa conference. Medical teacher. 2011 May 1;33(5):370-83.
  4. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Galbraith R, Hays R, Kent A, Perrott V, Roberts T. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Medical teacher. 2011 Mar 1;33(3):206-14.
  5. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Medical Teacher. 2011 Jun 1;33(6):447-58.
  6. Van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LK, van Tartwijk J. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Medical teacher. 2012 Mar 1;34(3):205-14.
  7. Pangaro L, Ten Cate O. Frameworks for learner assessment in medicine: AMEE Guide No. 78. Medical Teacher. 2013 Jun 1;35(6):e1197-210.
  8. Waugh CK, Gronlund NE. Assessment of student achievement (10th editi). Pearson. 2013.
  9. Van Der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW, Govaerts MJ, Heeneman S. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Medical teacher. 2015 Jul 3;37(7):641-6.
  10. Coombes L, Roberts M, Zahra D, Burr S. Twelve tips for assessment psychometrics. Medical teacher. 2016 Mar 3;38(3):250-4.
  11. Dent J, Harden RM, Hunt D. A practical guide for medical teachers. Elsevier health sciences; 2017
  12. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, Holmboe ES, Frank JR, ICBME Collaborators. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Medical teacher. 2017 Jun 3;39(6):609-16.
  13. Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Hays R, Palacios Mackay MF, Roberts T, Swanson D. 2018 Consensus framework for good assessment. Medical teacher. 2018 Nov 2;40(11):1102-9.
  14. Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien BC. 2018. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice. Wiley. 2018
  15. Raymond MR, Grande JP. A practical guide to test blueprinting. Medical teacher. 2019 Aug 3;41(8):854-61.
  16. Boursicot K, Kemp S, Wilkinson T, Findyartini A, Canning C, Cilliers F, Fuller R. Performance assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the 2020 Ottawa Conference. Medical Teacher. 2021 Jan 2;43(1):58-67
  17. Tillema H, Leenknecht M, Segers M. Assessing assessment quality: Criteria for quality assurance in design of (peer) assessment for learning–A review of research studies. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2011 Mar 1;37(1):25-34.
  18. Khan KZ, Gaunt K, Ramachandran S, Pushkar P. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): AMEE guide no. 81. Part II: organisation & administration. Medical teacher. 2013 Sep 1;35(9):e1447-63.
  19. Harden RM, Lilley P, Patricio M. The Definitive Guide to the OSCE: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination as a performance assessment. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015 Jun 15.
  20. Driessen EW, van Tartwijk J, Govaerts M, Teunissen P, van der Vleuten CP. The use of programmatic assessment in the clinical workplace: a Maastricht case report. Medical Teacher. 2012 Mar 1;34(3):226-31.
  21. Paniagua MA, Swygert KA. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. 2016
  22. Coughlin PA, Featherstone CR. How to write a high quality multiple choice question (MCQ): A guide for clinicians. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2017 Nov 1;54(5):654-8.
  23. Hols-Elders W, Bloemendaal P, Bos N, Quaak M, Sijstermans R, Jong PD. Twelve tips for computer-based assessment in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2008 Jan 1;30(7):673-8.
  24. Bandaranayake RC. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: AMEE Guide No. 37. Medical Teacher. 2008 Jan 1;30(9-10):836-45.
  25. McKinley DW, Norcini JJ. How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide No. 85. Medical Teacher. 2014 Feb 1;36(2):97-110.
  26. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Medical Teacher. 2011 Jun 1;33(6):447-58.
  27. Pell G, Fuller R, Homer M, Roberts T. How to measure the quality of the OSCE: a review of metrics–AMEE guide no. 49. Medical teacher. 2010 Oct 1;32(10):802-11.
  28. Uijtdehaage S, Schuwirth LW. Assuring the quality of programmatic assessment: moving beyond psychometrics. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2018 Dec;7(6):350-1.
  29. Kirkpatrick D. 1996. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Train Dev 1:54–59.
  30. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Medical teacher. 2012 May 1;34(5):e288-99.
  31. Gale R, Grant J. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 10: Managing change in a medical context: Guidelines for action. Medical Teacher. 1997 Jan 1;19(4):239-49.
  32. McLean M, Cilliers F, Van Wyk JM. Faculty development: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Medical teacher. 2008 Jan 1;30(6):555-84.
  33. Schuwirth LWT. 2009. What costs complexity and what price simplicity? Med Teach 31:475–476.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.66595

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 865 | views : 762

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Yoyo Suhoyo, Gandes Retno Rahayu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  

 JPKI Stats