a FAIMER , Philadelphia PA , USA.
b NBME , Philadelphia PA , USA.
Med Teach. 2018 Nov;40(11):1102-1109. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016. Epub 2018 Oct 9.
In 2010, the Ottawa Conference produced a set of consensus criteria for good assessment. These were well received and since then the working group monitored their use. As part of the 2010 report, it was recommended that consideration be given in the future to preparing similar criteria for systems of assessment. Recent developments in the field suggest that it would be timely to undertake that task and so the working group was reconvened, with changes in membership to reflect broad global representation. Consideration was given to whether the initially proposed criteria continued to be appropriate for single assessments and the group believed that they were. Consequently, we reiterate the criteria that apply to individual assessments and duplicate relevant portions of the 2010 report. This paper also presents a new set of criteria that apply to systems of assessment and, recognizing the challenges of implementation, offers several issues for further consideration. Among these issues are the increasing diversity of candidates and programs, the importance of legal defensibility in high stakes assessments, globalization and the interest in portable recognition of medical training, and the interest among employers and patients in how medical education is delivered and how progression decisions are made.
2010 年，渥太华会议提出了一套评估良好的共识标准。这些标准受到了广泛欢迎，此后工作组一直在监测其使用情况。作为 2010 年报告的一部分，建议将来考虑为评估系统制定类似的标准。该领域的最新发展表明，现在是承担这项任务的适当时机，因此重新召集了工作组，成员的变化反映了广泛的全球代表性。考虑到最初提出的标准是否仍然适用于单一评估，该小组认为它们仍然适用。因此，我们重申适用于个别评估的标准，并复制 2010 年报告的相关部分。本文还提出了一套适用于评估系统的新标准，并认识到实施过程中的挑战，提出了一些进一步审议的问题。其中包括候选人与项目的多样性日益增加、高风险评估中法律防御的重要性、全球化以及对医疗培训的可携带认可的兴趣，以及雇主和患者对医学教育的提供方式和进步决策的兴趣。
