This paper examines the clinical assessment of learners preparing to enter independent healthcare practice. It traces the evolution of assessment methods from continuous practical assessments to modern tools such as the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and standardized patients. The paper addresses key assessment criteria — validity, reliability, feasibility, and discriminating power — and discusses how mentors and assessors contribute to developing clinical competence. It also explores accountability frameworks involving diverse stakeholders, the importance of threshold concepts in clinical learning, and the need for assessment tools that capture professional behaviors and attitudes alongside technical skills.
The paper demonstrates effective use of evidence-based synthesis: the author draws on multiple sources across several decades to construct a coherent argument about assessment quality, rather than treating each source in isolation. The extended metaphor of the "ha-ha" is used strategically to clarify the difference between novice and expert perspective, illustrating how analogical reasoning can make abstract pedagogical concepts accessible.
The paper opens with a historical overview of clinical assessment and poses a guiding research question about competence. Subsequent sections define assessment criteria and examine modern tools such as OSCE and standardized patients. The paper then shifts to the assessor's perspective, covering mentor responsibilities and accountability to stakeholders. A penultimate section addresses outcome accuracy and the complexity of clinical learning. The conclusion identifies a persistent gap: the underdevelopment of tools measuring professional attitudes and behaviors.
Clinical assessment involves the evaluation of technical skills, communication skills, professionalism, knowledge base, and teaching skills — where applicable — of students who are about to enter independent practice. Technological changes have made it possible to assess clinical performance in ways that are far more advanced than the pencil-and-paper tests relied upon in the past (Dauphinee, 1995). In the late 1970s, clinical training programs utilized continuous practical assessments to evaluate learner competencies and as a means of providing formative assessment feedback. These continuous practical assessments were considered to be "a much more valid, reliable, and realistic method of assessment" (Quinn, 1989). As clinical placements grew shorter and the number of staff — including those with "supernumerary status" — grew larger, the quality of continuous practical assessments was substantively impaired (Girot, 1993).
The goal of assessment has always been to identify a "competent practitioner" and to support the educational efforts required to develop clinicians who meet the standards associated with that designation (Quinn, 1989). The central question remains: what is meant by the term competence, and how can it be assessed, especially at different levels of development? (Girot, 1993).
The level of quality and reliability demanded of clinical assessment requires the use of assessment tools that tend to be based on quantitative measures and that rely on professional judgments (Harris & Bell, 1997). The validity and reliability of these measures must come from evidence-based multiple measures and the triangulation of data (Harris & Bell, 1997).
Research in the area of poorly performing physicians may help inform the task of developing valid and reliable measures of assessing clinical performance (Southgate et al., 2000). The definitions of the ratings acceptable, cause for concern, and unacceptable are based on the judgments of professional assessors and lay people, determined according to the commonly accepted standards of any reasonably competent professional. The measures make up a broad portfolio — as well they should, given the high stakes involved — and include the following approaches: "Examination of medical record; case-based discussions; observation of consultations; tour of the doctor's working environment; up to 20 structured interviews with third parties, including patients, colleagues, health service managers, and nurses; and an interview with the doctor under review" (Southgate et al., 2000, p. 152). The validity and reliability of this constellation of performance procedures and measures is sufficiently robust to withstand legal challenge. These procedures are typically reserved for use with doctors who are at high risk of failure due to poor performance; less intrusive, rigorous, and costly data collection is used for marginally performing professionals.
Assessment strategies must meet a number of key criteria in order to be considered effective assessment methods (Harris & Bell, 1997). First, assessment must be valid — at its most fundamental level, this means that the assessment actually measures what it was intended to measure (Harris & Bell, 1997). To ensure validity, a first step is to match the assessment to pre-determined learning outcomes (Harris & Bell, 1997).
Second, assessment must be reliable according to certain standards. Absolute reliability is generally not achievable because there are so many variables not under the control of the learner or the assessor (Harris & Bell, 1997). An assessment of clinical performance should yield the same fundamental results if repeated at another time with the same learner under the same conditions (Harris & Bell, 1997).
Third, assessment must be feasible (Harris & Bell, 1997). This means that the assessment can be accomplished with the available resources and within the allotted time frame (Harris & Bell, 1997). Feasibility applies to the learning environment, the learner, and the clinical practice assessor (Harris & Bell, 1997).
Finally, an assessment must demonstrate adequate discriminating power — the ability to distinguish among learners (Harris & Bell, 1997). Discriminating power is important in formative assessment if remediation or prescriptive instruction is to follow, and it is equally important in the summative evaluation process (Harris & Bell, 1997).
Accountability in assessment cannot be accomplished without a wide battery of evaluation tools that measure a broad range of outcomes and attributes. Those attributes must be gauged at both the individual and the group level in order to develop accurate quality indices.
Assessment strategies used today are capable of predicting clinical competence to a degree never before possible (Dauphinee, 1995). Newer approaches to clinical assessment include the capability to administer large-scale performance tests across multicenter locations, and improvement in the measurement quality of performance-based tests has been substantive (Dauphinee, 1995). One approach that exemplifies the higher standards now feasible is the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) (Dauphinee, 1995). The OSCE consists of multiple independent stations through which students proceed in a timed, serial assessment format (Dauphinee, 1995). The system is designed to assess predetermined clinical skills and typically utilizes standardized patients (SPs) (Dauphinee, 1995).
Standardized patients are lay people trained to role-play and simulate a range of medical problems (Dauphinee, 1995). The primary benefit of using standardized patients is that the simulations are conducted in a reliable, consistent, and wholly realistic manner (Dauphinee, 1995). A further strength of simulation training is that it is highly suitable for the training of multidisciplinary teams (Nishisaki et al., 2007). The competence, self-efficacy, and overall performance of individuals — as well as the performance of multidisciplinary teams — have been shown to improve through training and assessment on standardized patients (Nishisaki et al., 2007). There is reliable evidence that the actual operational performance of trainees improves in clinical settings through the use of procedural simulation (Nishisaki et al., 2007).
Extensive clinical assessment tools are available for evaluating clinical knowledge and skills (Murray et al., 2000). What are less available — likely because the difficulty of measurement is greater — are tools that assess professional behaviors and attitudes such as cross-cultural competency, scholarship, multidisciplinary teamwork, integrity, responsibility, honesty, empathy, altruism, confidentiality, ethics, and respect for colleagues and patients (Murray et al., 2000). It is important for a mentor with clinical assessment responsibilities to be aware of these deficiencies (Murray et al., 2000). Since assessment will drive the learning of students, very little effort will be put forth to develop these broader competencies and outcomes — desired by the larger society and the discipline alike — unless assessment tools are developed and incorporated into the clinical assessment process (Murray et al., 2000).
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.