Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Emeritus Professor John Spencer
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Objective: To survey medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment procedures. Method: The survey used a 19-item questionnaire designed for self-completion. Respondents were invited to 'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree' with a series of statements about the purposes and fairness of assessment. There was space for free text comments relating to each statement. Results: A total of 312 students out of a sample of 381 completed questionnaires (82% response rate). Whilst the majority of students (> 95%) agreed that ensuring competence, providing feedback and guiding student learning were important purposes of assessment, only half (51%) felt that assessment should be used to predict performance as a doctor. A clear majority of students (81%) agreed that, on the whole, assessment at Newcastle Medical School was fair. Data interpretation papers (comprising a combination of multiple true/false, 'one best answer' and short answers) were perceived to be the fairest assessment tool; the assessment of clinical rotations by supervisors was perceived as the least fair. Differences in perception about the fairness of several assessment methods emerged between junior and senior students. A large number of respondents expressed desire for the provision of more feedback on performance in order to guide future learning. Conclusions: Whilst students' views about the fairness of specific assessment tools may sometimes be at variance with published research on assessment, their perceptions will influence the acceptability of assessment. Students would welcome the introduction of methods that provide meaningful assessment feedback.
Author(s): Spencer JA; Duffield KE
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Medical Education
Year: 2002
Volume: 36
Issue: 9
Pages: 879-886
ISSN (print): 0308-0110
ISSN (electronic): 1365-2923
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01291.x
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01291.x
PubMed id: 12354251
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
