School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Med Educ. 2019 Oct;53(10):1003-1012. doi: 10.1111/medu.13924. Epub 2019 Jul 15.
Increasingly, narrative assessment data are used to substantiate and enhance the robustness of assessor judgements. However, the interpretation of written assessment comments is inherently complex and relies on human (expert) judgements. The purpose of this study was to explore how expert assessors process and construe or bring meaning to narrative data when interpreting narrative assessment comments written by others in the setting of standardised performance assessment.
Narrative assessment comments on student communication skills and communication scores across six objective structured clinical examination stations were obtained for 24 final-year pharmacy students. Aggregated narrative data across all stations were sampled for nine students (three good, three average and three poor performers, based on communication scores). A total of 10 expert assessors reviewed the aggregated set of narrative comments for each student. Cognitive (information) processing was captured through think-aloud procedures and verbal protocol analysis.
Expert assessors primarily made use of two strategies to interpret the narratives, namely comparing and contrasting, and forming mental images of student performance. Assessors appeared to use three different perspectives when interpreting narrative comments, including those of: (i) the student (placing him- or herself in the shoes of the student); (ii) the examiner (adopting the role of examiner and reinterpreting comments according to his or her own standards or beliefs), and (iii) the professional (acting as the profession's gatekeeper by considering the assessment to be a representation of real-life practice).
The present findings add to current understandings of assessors' interpretations of narrative performance data by identifying the strategies and different perspectives used by expert assessors to frame and bring meaning to written comments. Assessors' perspectives affect assessors' interpretations of assessment comments and are likely to be influenced by their beliefs, interpretations of the assessment setting and personal performance theories. These results call for the use of multiple assessors to account for variations in assessor perspectives in the interpretation of narrative assessment data.
越来越多的叙述性评估数据被用于证实和增强评估者判断的稳健性。然而,对书面评估意见的解释本质上是复杂的,依赖于人的(专家)判断。本研究的目的是探讨在标准化绩效评估背景下,专家评估者如何处理和理解他人撰写的叙述性评估意见中的叙述性数据,以及如何赋予其意义。
获取了 24 名药学专业最后一年学生在六个客观结构化临床考试站的沟通技能叙述性评估意见和沟通分数。从所有站点汇总了 9 名学生(根据沟通分数,分为 3 名优秀、3 名中等和 3 名较差的学生)的叙述性数据。共有 10 名专家评估者对每个学生的汇总叙述性评论进行了评估。通过出声思维程序和口头报告分析来捕捉认知(信息)处理。
专家评估者主要使用了两种策略来解释叙述性数据,即比较和对比,以及对学生表现形成心理图像。评估者在解释叙述性评论时似乎使用了三种不同的视角,包括:(i)学生(设身处地为学生着想);(ii)评估者(采用评估者的角色,根据自己的标准或信念重新解释评论);(iii)专业人士(作为专业人士的把关人,认为评估是对现实生活实践的代表)。
本研究结果通过确定专家评估者用于构建和赋予书面评论意义的策略和不同视角,增加了对评估者对叙述性绩效数据解释的理解。评估者的观点影响他们对评估意见的解释,并且可能受到他们的信念、对评估背景的解释以及个人绩效理论的影响。这些结果呼吁在解释叙述性评估数据时使用多个评估者,以考虑评估者观点的差异。