Display options
Cite
Morris ZS, Bullock AD, Belfield CR, et al. Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Med Educ. 2001;35(6):537-43doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x.
Morris, Z. S., Bullock, A. D., Belfield, C. R., Butterfield, S., & Frame, J. W. (2001). Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Medical education, 35(6), 537-43. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x
Morris, Z S, et al. "Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses." Medical education vol. 35,6 (2001): 537-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x
Morris ZS, Bullock AD, Belfield CR, Butterfield S, Frame JW. Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Med Educ. 2001 Jun;35(6):537-43. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x. PMID: 11380855.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Educ. 2001 Jun;35(6):537-43. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x.

Assessment in postgraduate dental education: an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.

Medical education

Z S Morris, A D Bullock, C R Belfield, S Butterfield, J W Frame

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 11380855 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00923.x

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This paper describes a study designed to evaluate assessment in postgraduate dental education in England, identifying strengths and weaknesses and focusing specifically on its relevance, consistency and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS: A four-phase qualitative method was used: a mapping of current career paths, assessment policy, and issues (phase 1); more detailed studies of the practice of assessment for a range of courses, and the systemic/management perspective of assessment (i.e. quality assurance) (phases 2 and 3), and analysis and reporting (phase 4). Data were analysed from documents, interviews, group consultations and observations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Five key issues may be distilled from the findings: (i) lack of formal assessment of general professional training; (ii) trainer variation in assessment; (iii) the extent to which assessments are appropriate indicators of later success; (iv) the relationship between assessment and patient care, and (v) data to assess the costs of assessment.

CONCLUSION: Current assessment procedures might be improved if consideration is given to: assessment which supports an integrated period of general professional training; training for trainers and inspection procedures to address variation; more authentic assessments, based directly on clinical work and grading cases and posts, and better data on allocation of resources, in particular clinicians' time given to assessment.

MeSH terms

Publication Types