Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34433230›Full record

ArticleMedical education2022

Trust, power and learning in workplace-based assessment: The trainee perspective.

Damian J Castanelli, Jennifer M Weller, Elizabeth Molloy, Margaret Bearman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Feedback with feelings: the human complexity of expressing judgements about performance.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Damian J CastanelliSchool of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5377-809X
Jennifer M WellerCentre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, School of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Elizabeth MolloyDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-9348
Margaret BearmanCentre for Research and Assessment in Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6862-9871

Funding

Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists 17/031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For trainees to participate meaningfully in workplace-based assessment (WBA), they must have trust in their assessor. However, the trainee's dependent position complicates such trust. Understanding how power and trust influence WBAs may help us make them more effective learning opportunities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 postgraduate anaesthesia trainees across Australia and New Zealand. Sensitised by notions of power, we used constructivist grounded theory methodology to examine trainees' experiences with trusting their supervisors in WBAs. In our trainee accounts, we found that supervisors held significant power to mediate access to learning opportunities and influence trainee progress in training. All episodes where supervisors could observe trainees, from simply working together to formal WBAs, were seen to generate assessment information with potential consequences. In response, trainees actively acquiesced to a deferential role, which helped them access desirable expertise and minimise the risk of reputational harm. Trainees granted trust based on how they anticipated a supervisor would use the power inherent in their role. Trainees learned to ration exposure of their authentic practice to supervisors in proportion to their trust in them. Trainees were more trusting and open to learning when supervisors used their power for the trainee's benefit and avoided WBAs with supervisors they perceived as less trustworthy. If assessment for learning is to flourish, then the trainee-supervisor power dynamic must evolve. Enhancing supervisor behaviour through reflection and professional development to better reward trainee trust would invite more trainee participation in assessment for learning. Modifying the assessment system design to nudge the power balance towards the trainee may also help. Modifications could include designated formative and summative assessments or empowering trainees to select which assessments count towards progress decisions. Attending to power and trust in WBA may stimulate progress towards the previously aspirational goal of assessment for learning in the workplace.

Indexed as

TrustWorkplaceClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID34433230
PMCPMC9292503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.