AIRR - ANZCA Institutional Research Repository
Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11055/875
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCastanelli DJen_US
dc.contributor.authorWeller JMen_US
dc.contributor.authorMolloy Een_US
dc.contributor.authorBearman Men_US
dc.date2019-09-03-
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-18T03:37:04Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-18T03:37:04Z-
dc.identifier.citation2019 Sep 3 [Epub ahead of print]en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11055/875-
dc.description.abstractMedical educators are tasked with decisions on trainee progression and credentialing for independent clinical practice, which requires robust evidence from workplace-based assessment. It is unclear how the current promotion of workplace-based assessment as a pedagogical approach to promote learning has impacted this use of assessments for decision-making; meeting both these purposes may present unforeseen challenges. In this study we explored how supervisors make decisions on trainee progress in practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 supervisors of postgraduate anesthesia training across Australia and New Zealand and undertook thematic analysis of the transcripts. Supervisors looked beyond the formal assessment portfolio when making performance decisions. They instead used assessment ‘shadow systems’ based on their own observation and confidential judgements from trusted colleagues. Supervisors’ decision making involved expert judgement of the perceived salient aspects of performance and the standard to be attained while making allowances for the opportunities and constraints of the local learning environment. Supervisors found making progress decisions an emotional burden. When faced with difficult decisions, they found ways to share the responsibility and balance the potential consequences for the trainee with the need to protect their patients. Viewed through the lens of community of practice theory, the development of assessment ‘shadow systems’ indicates a lack of alignment between local workplace assessment practices and the prescribed programmatic assessment approach to high-stakes progress decisions. Avenues for improvement include cooperative development of formal assessment processes to better meet local needs or incorporating the information in ‘shadow systems’ into formal assessment processes.en_US
dc.subjectdecision-makingen_US
dc.subjectMedical Educationen_US
dc.subjectprogrammatic assessmenten_US
dc.subjectqualitative researchen_US
dc.subjectworkplace learningen_US
dc.subjectworkplace-based assessmenten_US
dc.titleShadow systems in assessment: how supervisors make progress decisions in practice.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleAdvances in Health Sciences Educationen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10459-019-09913-5en_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=31485893en_US
dc.type.studyortrialCase Control Studiesen_US
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:Scholarly and Clinical
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

14
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.