Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31998987›Full record

ArticleMedical education2020

Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment.

Suzanne Schut, Sylvia Heeneman, Beth Bierer, Erik Driessen, Jan van Tartwijk, Cees van der Vleuten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Suzanne SchutDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8298-399X
Sylvia HeenemanDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6103-8075
Beth BiererEducation Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7952-8822
Erik DriessenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8115-261X
Jan van TartwijkDepartment of Education, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6804-4163
Cees van der VleutenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6802-3119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProgrammatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be of low-stakes and used only for high-stake decisions when aggregated. In practice, low-stake assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. We explored how teachers conceptualise assessments within programmatic assessment and how they engage with learners in assessment relationships.

methodsWe used a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore teachers' assessment conceptualisations and assessment relationships in the context of programmatic assessment. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews at two different graduate-entry medical training programmes following a purposeful sampling approach. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively until we reached theoretical sufficiency. We identified themes using a process of constant comparison.

resultsResults showed that teachers conceptualise low-stake assessments in three different ways: to stimulate and facilitate learning; to prepare learners for the next step, and to use as feedback to gauge the teacher's own effectiveness. Teachers intended to engage in and preserve safe, yet professional and productive working relationships with learners to enable assessment for learning when securing high-quality performance and achievement of standards. When teachers' assessment conceptualisations were more focused on accounting conceptions, this risked creating tension in the teacher-learner assessment relationship. Teachers struggled between taking control and allowing learners' independence.

conclusionsTeachers believe programmatic assessment can have a positive impact on both teaching and student learning. However, teachers' conceptualisations of low-stake assessments are not focused solely on learning and also involve stakes for teachers. Sampling across different assessments and the introduction of progress committees were identified as important design features to support teachers and preserve the benefits of prolonged engagement in assessment relationships. These insights contribute to the design of effective implementations of programmatic assessment within the medical education context.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalTrustConcept FormationFaculty, MedicalHumansLearningTeaching

Identifiers

PMID31998987
PMCPMC7318263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.