Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2018; 38(04): 471-478
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1666982
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Assessment in Neurologic Education

Lyell K. Jones Jr.
1   Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 August 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Neurology trainee assessment is a required component of the education feedback loop, allowing programs and trainees to measure their progress toward established educational goals. In the era of competency-based medical education, assessment systems should be designed to inform decisions about each trainee's acquisition of the many competencies required for independent clinical neurology practice. In addition to the need to inform trainees and programs regarding trainee performance, assessment systems must be equipped to satisfy requirements established by accrediting bodies. Educational goals should be thoughtfully established prior to assessment system design to ensure that assessment priorities align with the overall goal of equipping graduates to deliver high-quality neurologic care. This article provides an overview of modern principles of medical education as they can be applied to neurologic education, complemented by practical recommendations for neurologic educators to develop or improve assessment systems within their own training programs.

Keywords

assessment - neurologic education - competency-based medical education - feedback - evaluation
 

  • References

  • 1 Harris P, Bhanji F, Topps M. , et al; ICBME Collaborators. Evolving concepts of assessment in a competency-based world. Med Teach 2017; 39 (06) 603-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK. , et al; ICBME Collaborators. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2017; 39 (06) 609-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med 2002; 77 (02) 156-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lewis S. The Neurology Milestone Project. ACGME; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 5 ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice?. Acad Med 2007; 82 (06) 542-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jones Jr LK, Dimberg EL, Boes CJ. , et al. Milestone-compatible neurology resident assessments: a role for observable practice activities. Neurology 2015; 84 (22) 2279-2283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Warm EJ, Mathis BR, Held JD. , et al. Entrustment and mapping of observable practice activities for resident assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29 (08) 1177-1182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci 2006; 17 (03) 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goodhart C. Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience. Reserve Bank of Australia; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Ropper AH. How to determine if you have succeeded at neurology residency. Ann Neurol 2016; 79 (03) 339-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW. , et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach 2012; 34 (03) 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Silber CG, Nasca TJ, Paskin DL, Eiger G, Robeson M, Veloski JJ. Do global rating forms enable program directors to assess the ACGME competencies?. Acad Med 2004; 79 (06) 549-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 van Barneveld C. The dependability of medical students' performance ratings as documented on in-training evaluations. Acad Med 2005; 80 (03) 309-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Downing SM. Threats to the validity of clinical teaching assessments: what about rater error?. Med Educ 2005; 39 (04) 353-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Turner JL, Dankoski ME. Objective structured clinical exams: a critical review. Fam Med 2008; 40 (08) 574-578
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Myers K, Zibrowski EM, Lingard L. Engaged at the extremes: residents' perspectives on clinical teaching assessment. Acad Med 2012; 87 (10) 1397-1400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Donnon T, Al Ansari A, Al Alawi S, Violato C. The reliability, validity, and feasibility of multisource feedback physician assessment: a systematic review. Acad Med 2014; 89 (03) 511-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Holmboe E, Edgar L, Hamstra S. The Milestone Guidebook. ACGME; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Humphrey-Murto S, Wood TJ, Ross S. , et al. Assessment pearls for competency-based medical education. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9 (06) 688-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Leep Hunderfund AN, Rubin DI, Laughlin RS. , et al. Validity and feasibility of the EMG direct observation tool (EMG-DOT). Neurology 2016; 86 (17) 1627-1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K. , et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med 2015; 90 (12) 1698-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fragneto RY, Dilorenzo AN, Schell RM, Bowe EA. Evaluating practice-based learning and improvement: efforts to improve acceptance of portfolios. J Grad Med Educ 2010; 2 (04) 638-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W. , et al. Reviewing residents' competence: a qualitative study of the role of clinical competency committees in performance assessment. Acad Med 2015; 90 (08) 1084-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sigsbee B, Goldenberg JN, Bever Jr CT, Schierman B, Jones Jr LK. Introducing the Axon Registry: An opportunity to improve quality of neurologic care. Neurology 2016; 87 (21) 2254-2258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar