Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S L Fowell

Publications and source records attributed to S L Fowell.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Estimating the minimum number of judges required for test-centred standard setting on written assessments. do discussion and iteration have an influence?

Absolute standard setting procedures are recommended for assessment in medical education. Absolute, test-centred standard setting procedures were introduced for written assessments in the Liverpool MBChB in 2001. The modified Angoff and Ebel methods have been used for short answer question-based and extended matching question-based papers, respectively. Data collected has been analysed to investigate whether reliable standards can be achieved for small-scale, medical school-based assessments, to establish the minimum number of judges required and the effect of a discussion phase on reliability. The root mean squared error (RMSE) has been used as a measure of reliability and used to compute 95% confidence intervals for comparison to the examination statistics. The RMSE has been used to calculate the minimum number of judges required to obtain a predetermined minimum level of reliability, and the effect of the number of judges and number of items have been examined. Values of the RMSE obtained vary from 0.9 to 2.2%. Using average variances across each paper type, the minimum number of judges to obtain a RMSE of less than 2% is 10 or more judges before discussion or 6 or more judges after discussion. The results indicate that including a discussion phase improves the reliability and reduces the minimum number of judges required. Decision studies indicate that increasing the number of questions included in the assessments would not significantly improve the reliability of the standard setting.

Curriculum↗
PubMed2000

Student assessment in undergraduate medical education in the United Kingdom, 1998.

This report describes the results of the project 'Assessment of Undergraduate Medical Education: Re-inventing the Wheel?' funded by the Nuffield Trust. The project was initiated in order to obtain information on current assessment practices in medical schools across the UK, to determine the extent of change as a consequence of the curricular reforms recommended by the General Medical Council (GMC) in 1993 and, if necessary, to stimulate debate about assessment and provide an impetus for change. The data obtained provide a detailed profile of the timing and nature of assessments used in medical schools and provide information for comparison with the survey of basic medical education in the British Isles carried out in 1977 and any subsequent studies. The study provides confirmatory and unexpected evidence. Schools are clearly revising their curricula consistent with recommendations made by the GMC. The main components of the study were as follows: a postal questionnaire sent to all UK medical schools, a national workshop, and four case studies of innovative assessment practices.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1999

Evaluating assessment: the missing link?

BACKGROUND: Methods chosen for assessment and the manner in which they are applied are so intimately associated with how individuals learn that developing appropriate assessment strategies is a key part of effective curriculum development. THE ASSESSMENT CYCLE: We describe a four-stage assessment cycle identifying important steps in assessment. Each step is described in detail, stressing its key aspects, including: the need for clear assessment policy and strategy, the importance of assessment blueprints in planning assessment, the need for effective feedback when presenting results, and the essential, but often overlooked, need to evaluate the assessment process itself. EVALUATING ASSESSMENT: This final evaluation stage is the most important part of the assessment cycle and can be divided into four levels. The first level includes evaluating each question in the assessment, the second level is concerned with establishing validity and reliability, the third level centres on the assessment process and review of assessments by external examiners and the fourth level involves evaluation over several assessments. RELATING ASSESSMENT TO THE CURRICULUM: This long-term evaluation should examine whether existing assessments are congruent with the curriculum and relate to all facets of the students' learning experiences. This is particularly important in a curriculum where the learning outcomes of student-centred learning are emphasized. Changes in the assessment of postgraduate trainees and increasing emphasis on peer review of clinicians will raise the profile of these outcomes in undergraduate education.

Curriculum↗
PubMed1998

Recent developments in assessing medical students.

Most medical schools in the UK are revising their undergraduate courses in response to the recommendations published by the General Medical Council Education Committee in Tomorrow's doctors. However, achievement of the objectives of curricular change is attendant on revision of the assessment process. This paper reviews traditional and more recently developed methods for assessment of medical education in the light of the General Medical Council's recommendations which relate specifically to summative assessment of the core curriculum. The importance of reliability and validity is highlighted, and the case for criterion-referenced assessment is examined.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗