There are no scientific theories that are uniquely related to assessment in medical education. There are many theories in adjacent fields, however, that can be informative for assessment in medical education, and in the recent decades they have proven their value. In this AMEE Guide we discuss theories on expertise development and psychometric theories, and the relatively young and emerging framework of assessment for learning. Expertise theories highlight the multistage processes involved. The transition from novice to expert is characterised by an increase in the aggregation of concepts from isolated facts, through semantic networks to illness scripts and instance scripts. The latter two stages enable the expert to recognise the problem quickly and form a quick and accurate representation of the problem in his/her working memory. Striking differences between experts and novices is not per se the possession of more explicit knowledge but the superior organisation of knowledge in his/her brain and pairing it with multiple real experiences, enabling not only better problem solving but also more efficient problem solving. Psychometric theories focus on the validity of the assessment – does it measure what it purports to measure and reliability – are the outcomes of the assessment reproducible. Validity is currently seen as building a train of arguments of how best observations of behaviour (answering a multiple-choice question is also a behaviour) can be translated into scores and how these can be used at the end to make inferences about the construct of interest. Reliability theories can be categorised into classical test theory, generalisability theory and item response theory. All three approaches have specific advantages and disadvantages and different areas of application. Finally in the Guide, we discuss the phenomenon of assessment for learning as opposed to assessment of learning and its implications for current and future development and research.

Background: Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. Methods: We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. Results: Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. Discussion: Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

Medical Education 2012: 46: 38–48 Context  Programmatic assessment is a notion that implies that the strength of the assessment process results from a careful combination of various assessment instruments. Accordingly, no single instrument is superior to another, but each has its own strengths, weaknesses and purpose in a programme. Yet, in terms of psychometric methods, a one‐size‐fits‐all approach is often used. Kane’s views on validity as represented by a series of arguments provide a useful framework from which to highlight the value of different widely used approaches to improve the quality and validity of assessment procedures. Methods  In this paper we discuss four inferences which form part of Kane’s validity theory: from observations to scores; from scores to universe scores; from universe scores to target domain, and from target domain to construct. For each of these inferences, we provide examples and descriptions of approaches and arguments that may help to support the validity inference. Conclusions  As well as standard psychometric methods, a programme of assessment makes use of various other arguments, such as: item review and quality control, structuring and examiner training; probabilistic methods, saturation approaches and judgement processes, and epidemiological methods, collation, triangulation and member‐checking procedures. In an assessment programme each of these can be used.

Progress testing is gaining ground rapidly after having been used almost exclusively in Maastricht and Kansas City. This increased popularity is understandable considering the intuitive appeal longitudinal testing has as a way to predict future competence and performance. Yet there are also important practicalities. Progress testing is longitudinal assessment in that it is based on subsequent equivalent, yet different, tests. The results of these are combined to determine the growth of functional medical knowledge for each student, enabling more reliable and valid decision making about promotion to a next study phase. The longitudinal integrated assessment approach has a demonstrable positive effect on student learning behaviour by discouraging binge learning. Furthermore, it leads to more reliable decisions as well as good predictive validity for future competence or retention of knowledge. Also, because of its integration and independence of local curricula, it can be used in a multi-centre collaborative production and administration framework, reducing costs, increasing efficiency and allowing for constant benchmarking. Practicalities include the relative unfamiliarity of faculty with the concept, the fact that remediation for students with a series of poor results is time consuming, the need to embed the instrument carefully into the existing assessment programme and the importance of equating subsequent tests to minimize test-to-test variability in difficulty. Where it has been implemented—collaboratively—progress testing has led to satisfaction, provided the practicalities are heeded well.

Despite growing evidence of the benefits of including assessment for learning strategies within programmes of assessment, practical implementation of these approaches is often problematical. Organisational culture change is often hindered by personal and collective beliefs which encourage adherence to the existing organisational paradigm. We aimed to explore how these beliefs influenced proposals to redesign a summative assessment culture in order to improve students’ use of assessment-related feedback. Using the principles of participatory design, a mixed group comprising medical students, clinical teachers and senior faculty members was challenged to develop radical solutions to improve the use of post-assessment feedback. Follow-up interviews were conducted with individual members of the group to explore their personal beliefs about the proposed redesign. Data were analysed using a socio-cultural lens. Proposed changes were dominated by a shared belief in the primacy of the summative assessment paradigm, which prevented radical redesign solutions from being accepted by group members. Participants’ prior assessment experiences strongly influenced proposals for change. As participants had largely only experienced a summative assessment culture, they found it difficult to conceptualise radical change in the assessment culture. Although all group members participated, students were less successful at persuading the group to adopt their ideas. Faculty members and clinical teachers often used indirect techniques to close down discussions. The strength of individual beliefs became more apparent in the follow-up interviews. Naïve epistemologies and prior personal experiences were influential in the assessment redesign but were usually not expressed explicitly in a group setting, perhaps because of cultural conventions of politeness. In order to successfully implement a change in assessment culture, firmly-held intuitive beliefs about summative assessment will need to be clearly understood as a first step.