Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Alexander PhillipsORCiD,
Dr Lucy Bookless,
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
BACKGROUND: Workplace-based assessments (WBAs) were designed to provide formative feedback to trainees throughout their surgical career. Several studies highlight dissatisfaction with WBAs, and some feel they lack validity and reliability and exist as a "tick-box exercise." No studies have looked at the attitudes of the assessor.AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate perceptions and experience of the 4 intercollegiate surgical curriculum programme WBAs by assessors.METHODS: An 18-item electronic questionnaire, including 6-point Likert scoring questions, was e-mailed to all surgical program directors for distribution to general surgery trainers within their deanery.RESULTS: In total, 64 responses were received. All trainers had been trained in using WBAs. Trainers had the most experience with procedure-based assessments (PBAs)-72% of trainers had completed more than 25 PBAs. Trainers felt PBAs were the most beneficial WBA, and both PBAs and case-based discussions were regarded as significantly more useful than mini clinical evaluation exercise (p < 0.05). More than 74% stated that WBAs were mainly initiated by trainees, and only 10% had specific sessions allocated to complete WBAs.CONCLUSION: WBAs are regarded as beneficial to trainees. The results suggest that assessors feel case-based discussions and PBAs, which assess higher thinking and practice of complex practical skills, respectively, are significandy more useful than assessments involved in observing more straightforward clinical and procedural interactions. (C) 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Author(s): Phillips AW, Madhavan A, Bookless LR, Macafee DAL
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Surgical Education
Print publication date: 01/09/2015
Online publication date: 14/05/2015
Acceptance date: 01/01/1900
ISSN (print): 1931-7204
ISSN (electronic): 1878-7452
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric