Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38274558›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2024

The Next Era of Assessment: Building a Trustworthy Assessment System.

Holly A Caretta-Weyer, Alina Smirnova, Michael A Barone, Jason R Frank, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Dana Levinson, Kiki M J M H Lombarts, Kimberly D Lomis, Abigail Martini, Daniel J Schumacher and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  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. Introducing the Next Era in Assessment.Perspectives on medical education · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors.

Holly A Caretta-WeyerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9783-5797
Alina SmirnovaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4491-3007
Michael A BaroneNBME, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4724-784X
Jason R FrankDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-6076-0146
Tina Hernandez-BoussardStanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-9564
Dana LevinsonJosiah Macy Jr Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kiki M J M H LombartsDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, NL.ORCID 0000-0001-6167-0620
Kimberly D LomisUndergraduate Medical Education Innovations, American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3504-6776
Abigail MartiniCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1860-8113
Daniel J SchumacherDivision of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5507-8452
David A TurnerAmerican Board of Pediatrics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abigail SchuhDivision of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6422-2361

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment in medical education has evolved through a sequence of eras each centering on distinct views and values. These eras include measurement (e.g., knowledge exams, objective structured clinical examinations), then judgments (e.g., workplace-based assessments, entrustable professional activities), and most recently systems or programmatic assessment, where over time multiple types and sources of data are collected and combined by competency committees to ensure individual learners are ready to progress to the next stage in their training. Significantly less attention has been paid to the social context of assessment, which has led to an overall erosion of trust in assessment by a variety of stakeholders including learners and frontline assessors. To meaningfully move forward, the authors assert that the reestablishment of trust should be foundational to the next era of assessment. In our actions and interventions, it is imperative that medical education leaders address and build trust in assessment at a systems level. To that end, the authors first review tenets on the social contextualization of assessment and its linkage to trust and discuss consequences should the current state of low trust continue. The authors then posit that trusting and trustworthy relationships can exist at individual as well as organizational and systems levels. Finally, the authors propose a framework to build trust at multiple levels in a future assessment system; one that invites and supports professional and human growth and has the potential to position assessment as a fundamental component of renegotiating the social contract between medical education and the health of the public.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, MedicalCompetency-Based EducationHumansTrustWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID38274558
PMCPMC10809864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.