Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32851194›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development

Prompting Candidates in Oral Assessment Contexts: A Taxonomy and Guiding Principles.

Jacob Pearce, Neville Chiavaroli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jacob PearceTertiary Education (Assessment), Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3081-9132
Neville ChiavaroliTertiary Education (Assessment), Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prompting is an aspect of oral assessment that deserves more attention. There appears to be considerable variation in how practitioners conceptualise prompting and how it is deployed in practice. In order to unpack the term and promote the validity of its use in performance assessments, we present a taxonomy of prompting as a continuum of types, namely: presenting the task; repeating information; clarifying questions; probing questions; and finally, leading questions. We offer general principles for consideration when using prompting in oral assessment: neutrality; consistency; transparency; and reflexivity. Whenever oral assessment is planned, assessors should be appropriately trained in the type and degree of prompting required, and candidates suitably briefed to know what to expect. Overall, we aim to raise awareness that quite different behaviours tend to be subsumed under the general term 'prompting'. This paper provides concrete guidelines for implementing the defensible and effective use of prompting in oral examinations, applicable to a wide range of assessment contexts.

Indexed as

assessmentoral assessmentoral examinationsPromptingviva

Identifiers

PMID32851194
PMCPMC7427130

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.