Cargando…
Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education
INTRODUCTION: Prior research has identified seven elements of a good assessment, but the elements have not been operationalized in the form of a rubric to rate assessment utility. It would be valuable for medical educators to have a systematic way to evaluate the utility of an assessment in order to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Association of American Medical Colleges
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30800790 http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10588 |
_version_ | 1783388412190916608 |
---|---|
author | Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. Ryan, Michael Hennessey, Erin Lindeman, Brenessa Pitts, Brian Rutherford, Kim A. Schwengel, Deborah Sozio, Stephen M. George, Jessica Jung, Julianna |
author_facet | Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. Ryan, Michael Hennessey, Erin Lindeman, Brenessa Pitts, Brian Rutherford, Kim A. Schwengel, Deborah Sozio, Stephen M. George, Jessica Jung, Julianna |
author_sort | Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Prior research has identified seven elements of a good assessment, but the elements have not been operationalized in the form of a rubric to rate assessment utility. It would be valuable for medical educators to have a systematic way to evaluate the utility of an assessment in order to determine if the assessment used is optimal for the setting. METHODS: We developed and refined an assessment utility rubric using a modified Delphi process. Twenty-nine graduate students pilot-tested the rubric in 2016 with hypothetical data from three examinations, and interrater reliability of rubric scores was measured with interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Consensus for all rubric items was reached after three rounds. The resulting assessment utility rubric includes four elements (equivalence, educational effect, catalytic effect, acceptability) with three items each, one element (validity evidence) with five items, and space to provide four feasibility items relating to time and cost. Rater scores had ICC values greater than .75. DISCUSSION: The rubric shows promise in allowing educators to evaluate the utility of an assessment specific to their setting. The medical education field needs to give more consideration to how an assessment drives learning forward, how it motivates trainees, and whether it produces acceptable ranges of scores for all stakeholders. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6338154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Association of American Medical Colleges |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63381542019-02-22 Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. Ryan, Michael Hennessey, Erin Lindeman, Brenessa Pitts, Brian Rutherford, Kim A. Schwengel, Deborah Sozio, Stephen M. George, Jessica Jung, Julianna MedEdPORTAL Original Publication INTRODUCTION: Prior research has identified seven elements of a good assessment, but the elements have not been operationalized in the form of a rubric to rate assessment utility. It would be valuable for medical educators to have a systematic way to evaluate the utility of an assessment in order to determine if the assessment used is optimal for the setting. METHODS: We developed and refined an assessment utility rubric using a modified Delphi process. Twenty-nine graduate students pilot-tested the rubric in 2016 with hypothetical data from three examinations, and interrater reliability of rubric scores was measured with interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Consensus for all rubric items was reached after three rounds. The resulting assessment utility rubric includes four elements (equivalence, educational effect, catalytic effect, acceptability) with three items each, one element (validity evidence) with five items, and space to provide four feasibility items relating to time and cost. Rater scores had ICC values greater than .75. DISCUSSION: The rubric shows promise in allowing educators to evaluate the utility of an assessment specific to their setting. The medical education field needs to give more consideration to how an assessment drives learning forward, how it motivates trainees, and whether it produces acceptable ranges of scores for all stakeholders. Association of American Medical Colleges 2017-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6338154/ /pubmed/30800790 http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10588 Text en Copyright © 2017 Colbert-Getz et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode) license. |
spellingShingle | Original Publication Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. Ryan, Michael Hennessey, Erin Lindeman, Brenessa Pitts, Brian Rutherford, Kim A. Schwengel, Deborah Sozio, Stephen M. George, Jessica Jung, Julianna Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title | Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title_full | Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title_fullStr | Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title_short | Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education |
title_sort | measuring assessment quality with an assessment utility rubric for medical education |
topic | Original Publication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30800790 http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10588 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT colbertgetzjoriem measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT ryanmichael measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT hennesseyerin measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT lindemanbrenessa measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT pittsbrian measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT rutherfordkima measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT schwengeldeborah measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT soziostephenm measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT georgejessica measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation AT jungjulianna measuringassessmentqualitywithanassessmentutilityrubricformedicaleducation |