The use of assessment rubrics in the higher education sector is now widespread in a number of disciplines. Typically, these rubrics are constructed by teachers who also tend to be the main users of the rubrics throughout the grading process. In recent years, questions have been raised about this teacher-directed approach and some educators have begun to explore an alternate approach to rubric construction; that is, engaging students in collaboration with their teachers to co-construct assessment rubrics. This paper outlines the processes employed in a project that investigated the co-construction of rubrics within six different contexts. The project aimed to engage students in collaboration with their teachers to co-construct rubrics which are co-owned by teacher and student. A mixed methods approach was utilized to explore the effectiveness of the strategy. Questionnaires, interviews and focus groups were utilized to gather data from both the teacher-participants and student-participants regarding their experiences of being involved in the study. Findings are presented from the perspectives of both students and teachers, relating their views of rubrics and the activity of rubric co-construction. The paper concludes with recommendations for practical approaches to rubric co-construction and future research directions.

Introduction: The need to balance pain management and radiographic image quality is at the forefront of patient care in diagnostic radiography. This study aimed to identify the decision‐making that radiographers employ when undertaking planar diagnostic imaging for pain‐afflicted adult trauma patients and the factors that influence these decisions. Methods: A virtual focus group interview was undertaken with six experienced Australian radiographers using a realistic scenario and questions based on it. Thematic analysis was employed to explore how radiographers approached planar diagnostic imaging of trauma patients and what influenced decisions regarding patient movement. Results: Five key factors in radiographers' decision‐making were identified: assistance from the multidisciplinary team, understanding the patient, pain reduction methods, the patient being informed and radiographer competence. Radiographers were found to further utilise professional knowledge of image interpretation and anatomy and physiology, in conjunction with interpersonal capabilities, to undertake radiographic examinations. Conclusion: The decision‐making process that informs the movement of pain‐afflicted adult trauma patients is multifactorial, aligning with the broad healthcare principles of multidisciplinary teamwork, holistic management of the patient and professional knowledge and practice. Further research is needed to explore correlations with different patient groups to validate this research.

The assessment of the clinical performance and clinical competence of radiography students is problematic for many reasons, including the following: Significant variations between clinical centres in how students are assessed Internal variations within larger clinical centres, depending on who completes the assessment forms Clinical supervisors being uncomfortable with failing poorly performing students Different interpretations among supervisors as to what constitutes competence Confusion amongst supervisors who accept students from more than one university, due to variations in assessment paperwork. A national assessment tool has been designed and implemented in radiation therapy. Other disciplines to develop a national assessment tool in recent times have included speech pathology and physiotherapy. The discussion that follows describes the first stage of a project to develop a national assessment framework, including a national assessment tool, for the diagnostic radiography profession.The first stage of this project to develop a national assessment framework is a literature search, and this paper is based on the preliminary findings of this search. The aims of the search were to identify: The fundamental principles of assessment in higher education Factors arising from these principles that must be considered when designing a clinical assessment tool Articles were sourced using Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), and were chosen based on their relevance to the topic. Some were sourced directly from their authors. Each article was summarised, and sorted into major categories using NVivo8™ (QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster, Victoria, Australia) qualitative data analysis software. These categories were: Function of education; issues related to assessment; types of knowledge and understanding; constructive alignment; teacher's role; competence; assessment (formative vs. summative and analytic vs. holistic); criterion and standards referencing; professional judgment. This was followed by a summary of the major categories.