ArticleNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2025
Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.
Article in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Qualitative Systematic Review of the Role of Entrustment in Pre-Registration Healthcare Practice-Based Learning: Implications for Dietetics Education.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop evidence-informed propositions for implementing whole-of-program assessment across dietetic education settings, in response to emerging education theory, technological advances such as generative artificial intelligence, and the need for meaningful learning and trustworthy progression decisions.
methodsA four-stage multiple methods study, grounded in pragmatism, was conducted. Initial propositions were developed through a systematic scoping review of programmatic assessment literature. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns, which were iteratively refined into themes and then preliminary propositions. These were further refined through workshops with dietetic educators, who provided feedback based on their expertise. A repeated systematic scoping review incorporated recent research to ensure currency, with findings integrated into the propositions. In the final stage, feedback from external reviewers was used to enhance clarity and practical relevance.
resultsNine propositions for evidence-informed practice in dietetic student assessment were developed. These propositions focus on aligning assessment with program learning outcomes, using varied learning tasks to generate trustworthy learning evidence, developing feedback literacy among education partners, involving expert assessors in progression decisions, and providing intermediate reviews to monitor student progress. The propositions emphasise the importance of student agency and recognise the influence of institutional structures and culture on assessment.
conclusionsThe propositions provide a practical, whole-of-program approach to assessment that promotes learning and trustworthy progression decisions. The approach is recommended as the common assessment process across the dietetics profession. By aligning assessment practices across the curriculum and profession, these propositions seek to enhance educational outcomes and address the evolving challenges in dietetic student education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.