Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses

• Published in: Medical education Vol. 35; no. 6; pp. 537 - 543
• Main Authors: MORRIS, Z. S, BULLOCK, A. D, BELFIELD, C. R, BUTTERFIELD, S, FRAME, J. W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 01.06.2001; Blackwell; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Cost effectiveness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; curriculum; Curriculum - standards; Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods; dental; education; Education, Dental, Graduate - economics; Education, Dental, Graduate - standards; education, dental, standards; education, medical, graduate; educational measurement; Educational Measurement - economics; Educational Measurement - standards; Educational sciences; graduate; Great Britain; Humans; medical; Medical and paramedical education; Professional Competence; reliability and validity; Reproducibility of Results; Teaching methods; United Kingdom; Vocational Education - economics; Vocational Education - standards; Great Britain; Occupational Skill Test; Evaluation; Higher Education; Dentistry; Graduate
• ISSN: 0308-0110; 1365-2923
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x

Introduction This paper describes a study designed to evaluate assessment in postgraduate dental education in England, identifying strengths and weaknesses and focusing specifically on its relevance, consistency and cost‐effectiveness. Methods A four‐phase qualitative method was used: a mapping of current career paths, assessment policy, and issues (phase 1); more detailed studies of the practice of assessment for a range of courses, and the systemic/management perspective of assessment (i.e. quality assurance) (phases 2 and 3), and analysis and reporting (phase 4). Data were analysed from documents, interviews, group consultations and observations. Results and discussion Five key issues may be distilled from the findings: (i) lack of formal assessment of general professional training; (ii) trainer variation in assessment; (iii) the extent to which assessments are appropriate indicators of later success; (iv) the relationship between assessment and patient care, and (v) data to assess the costs of assessment. Conclusion Current assessment procedures might be improved if consideration is given to: assessment which supports an integrated period of general professional training; training for trainers and inspection procedures to address variation; more authentic assessments, based directly on clinical work and grading cases and posts, and better data on allocation of resources, in particular clinicians’ time given to assessment.