The metric of medical education

B. Jolly,J. Spencer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01304.x
2002-09-01
Medical Education
Abstract:Why a series on measurement? Over the last decade significant advances have been made in the assessment of clinical competence of healthcare professionals. Historically, one major stimulus to these advances was the publication, over 20 years ago, of a paper by Harden and Gleeson describing how the long case was an inefficient method of assessment and could usefully be supplemented by the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Subsequently, simulated patients were shown to be a feasible method of controlling many testing situations. Expertise was developing in both the USA and in Europe on using new numerical techniques, such as generalizability theory and Rasch scaling, to improve the precision of measurement of human capacities. The First Cambridge Conference, in 1984, catalysed the synthesis of traditional (judgement oriented) and psychometric testing procedures, one portentous example being the embryonic idea behind key features testing. In sum, these events opened the way to a renewed interest in the psychometrics of clinical competence. This work was enthusiastically developed in the USA, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. However, a recent survey and observations made by the General Medical Council during its round of visits to medical schools in the late 1990s highlighted continuing deficiencies in the technical aspects of examinations in the UK. Conversations with colleagues worldwide suggest that, although there are centres of excellence and much good practice, the situation in many countries is not unlike that in the UK; some medical schools, boards and postgraduate institutions have forged ahead with developments in assessment techniques while others still lag far behind. Inconsistency or incoherence is common. Recently, even the British Medical Journal has shown bipolar tendencies, with two editorials on the long case , giving contrasting perspectives, with neither quoting or acknowledging the other. There is clearly a problem.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?