Gupta Sandeep K, Srivastava Tripti
Pharmacology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, IND.
Physiology, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Apr 11;16(4):e58073. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58073. eCollection 2024 Apr.
Studies that have methodically compiled the body of research on the competency-based medical education (CBME) assessment procedure and pinpointed knowledge gaps about the structure of the assessment process are few. Thus, the goals of the study were to create a model assessment framework for competency-based medical education that would be applicable in the Indian setting as well as to thoroughly examine the competency-based medical education assessment framework.
PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were the databases that were searched. The search parameters were restricted to English language publications about competency-based education and assessment methods, which were published between January 2006 and December 2020. A descriptive overview of the included research (in tabular form) served as the foundation for the data synthesis.
Databases provided 732 records; out of which 36 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-six studies comprised a mix of randomized controlled trials, focus group interviews, and questionnaire studies, including cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies (03), mixed-method studies, etc. The papers were published in 10 different journals. The greatest number was published in BMC Medical Education (18). The average quality score for included studies was 62.53% (range: 35.71-83.33%). Most authors are from the UK (07), followed by the USA (05). The included studies were grouped into seven categories based on their dominant focus: moving away from a behavioristic approach to a constructive approach of assessment (01 studies), formative assessment (FA) and feedback (10 studies), the hurdles in the implementation of feedback (04 studies), utilization of computer or online based formative test with automated feedback (05 studies), video feedback (02 studies), e-learning platforms for formative assessment (04 studies), studies related to workplace-based assessment (WBA)/mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX)/direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) (10 studies).
Various constructivist techniques, such as concept maps, portfolios, and rubrics, can be used for assessments. Self-regulated learning, peer feedback, online formative assessment, an online computer-based formative test with automated feedback, the use of a computerized web-based objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) evaluation system, and the use of narrative feedback instead of numerical scores in mini-CEX are all ways to increase student involvement in the design and implementation of the formative assessment.
系统整理基于胜任力的医学教育（CBME）评估程序研究并明确评估过程结构方面知识差距的研究较少。因此，本研究的目的是创建一个适用于印度环境的基于胜任力的医学教育评估框架模型，并全面审视基于胜任力的医学教育评估框架。
检索了PubMed、MEDLINE（Ovid）、EMBASE（Ovid）、Scopus、科学引文索引和谷歌学术等数据库。检索参数限于2006年1月至2020年12月期间发表的关于基于胜任力的教育和评估方法的英文出版物。对纳入研究的描述性概述（以表格形式）作为数据综合的基础。
数据库提供了732条记录；其中36条符合纳入和排除标准。36项研究包括随机对照试验、焦点小组访谈和问卷调查研究，包括横断面研究、定性研究（3项）、混合方法研究等。这些论文发表在10种不同的期刊上。发表数量最多的是《BMC医学教育》（18篇）。纳入研究的平均质量得分是62.53%（范围：35.71 - 83.33%）。大多数作者来自英国（7人），其次是美国（5人）。纳入研究根据其主要重点分为七类：从行为主义方法转向建构主义评估方法（1项研究）、形成性评估（FA）和反馈（10项研究）、反馈实施中的障碍（4项研究）、利用计算机或基于网络的形成性测试及自动反馈（5项研究）、视频反馈（2项研究）、用于形成性评估的电子学习平台（4项研究）、与基于工作场所的评估（WBA）/迷你临床评估练习（迷你CEX）/程序技能直接观察（DOPS）相关的研究（10项研究）。
各种建构主义技术，如概念图、档案袋和评分标准，可用于评估。自我调节学习、同伴反馈、在线形成性评估、带有自动反馈的基于计算机的在线形成性测试、使用基于网络的计算机化客观结构化临床考试（OSCE）评估系统以及在迷你CEX中使用叙述性反馈而非数字分数，都是增加学生参与形成性评估设计和实施的方法。
