Assessment Practices in Continuing Professional Development Activities in Health Professions: A Scoping Review.

CONTEXT: In continuing professional development (CPD), educators face the need to develop and implement innovative assessment strategies to adhere to accreditation standards and support lifelong learning. However, little is known about the development and validation of these assessment practices. We aimed to document the breadth and depth of what is known about the development and implementation of assessment practices within CPD activities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and updated in 2020. We examined five databases and identified 1733 abstracts. Two team members screened titles and abstracts for inclusion/exclusion. After data extraction, we conducted a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and a thematic analysis of qualitative data. RESULTS: A total of 130 studies were retained for the full review. Most reported assessments are written assessments (n = 100), such as multiple-choice items (n = 79). In 99 studies, authors developed an assessment for research purpose rather than for the CPD activity itself. The assessment validation process was detailed in 105 articles. In most cases, the authors examined the content with experts (n = 57) or pilot-tested the assessment (n = 50). We identified three themes: 1-satisfaction with assessment choices; 2-difficulties experienced during the administration of the assessment; and 3-complexity of the validation process. CONCLUSION: Building on the adage "assessment drives learning," it is imperative that the CPD practices contribute to the intended learning and limit the unintended negative consequences of assessment. Our results suggest that validation processes must be considered and adapted within CPD contexts.

Lessons from the implementation of developmental progress assessment: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Educators and researchers recently implemented developmental progress assessment (DPA) in the context of competency-based education. To reap its anticipated benefits, much still remains to be understood about its implementation. In this study, we aimed to determine the nature and extent of the current evidence on DPA, in an effort to broaden our understanding of the major goals and intended outcomes of DPA as well as the lessons learned from how it has been executed in, or applied across, educational contexts. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study based on the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley. Our search strategy yielded 2494 articles. These articles were screened for inclusion and exclusion (90% agreement), and numerical and qualitative data were extracted from 56 articles based on a pre-defined set of charting categories. The thematic analysis of the qualitative data was completed with iterative consultations and discussions until consensus was achieved for the interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Tools used to document DPA include scales, milestones and portfolios. Performances were observed in clinical or standardised contexts. We identified seven major themes in our qualitative thematic analysis: (a) underlying aims of DPA; (b) sources of information; (c) barriers; (d) contextual factors that can act as barriers or facilitators to the implementation of DPA; (e) facilitators; (f) observed outcomes, and (g) documented validity evidences. CONCLUSIONS: Developmental progress assessment seems to fill a need in the training of future competent health professionals. However, moving forward with a widespread implementation of DPA, factors such as lack of access to user-friendly technology and time to observe performance may render its operationalisation burdensome in the context of competency-based medical education.

Characterizing the literature on validity and assessment in medical education: a bibliometric study.

INTRODUCTION: Assessment in Medical Education fills many roles and is under constant scrutiny. Assessments must be of good quality, and supported by validity evidence. Given the high-stakes consequences of assessment, and the many audiences within medical education (e. g., training level, specialty-specific), we set out to document the breadth, scope, and characteristics of the literature reporting on validation of assessments within medical education. METHOD: Searches in Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, ERIC, EMBASE (Ovid), and PsycINFO (Ovid) identified articles reporting on assessment of learners in medical education published since 1999. Included articles were coded for geographic origin, journal, journal category, targeted assessment, and authors. A map of collaborations between prolific authors was generated. RESULTS: A total of 2,863 articles were included. The majority of articles were from the United States, with Canada producing the most articles per medical school. Most articles were published in journals with medical categorizations (73.1% of articles), but Medical Education was the most represented journal (7.4% of articles). Articles reported on a variety of assessment tools and approaches, and 89 prolific authors were identified, with a total of 228 collaborative links. DISCUSSION: Literature reporting on validation of assessments in medical education is heterogeneous. Literature is produced by a broad array of authors and collaborative networks, reported to a broad audience, and is primarily generated in North American and European contexts. Our findings speak to the heterogeneity of the medical education literature on assessment validation, and suggest that this heterogeneity may stem, at least in part, from differences in constructs measured, assessment purposes, or conceptualizations of validity.