Objectives Educators and researchers recently implemented developmental progress assessment (DPA) in the context of competency‐based education. To reap its anticipated benefits, much still remains to be understood about its implementation. In this study, we aimed to determine the nature and extent of the current evidence on DPA, in an effort to broaden our understanding of the major goals and intended outcomes of DPA as well as the lessons learned from how it has been executed in, or applied across, educational contexts. Methods We conducted a scoping study based on the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. Our search strategy yielded 2494 articles. These articles were screened for inclusion and exclusion (90% agreement), and numerical and qualitative data were extracted from 56 articles based on a pre‐defined set of charting categories. The thematic analysis of the qualitative data was completed with iterative consultations and discussions until consensus was achieved for the interpretation of the results. Results Tools used to document DPA include scales, milestones and portfolios. Performances were observed in clinical or standardised contexts. We identified seven major themes in our qualitative thematic analysis: (a) underlying aims of DPA; (b) sources of information; (c) barriers; (d) contextual factors that can act as barriers or facilitators to the implementation of DPA; (e) facilitators; (f) observed outcomes, and (g) documented validity evidences. Conclusions Developmental progress assessment seems to fill a need in the training of future competent health professionals. However, moving forward with a widespread implementation of DPA, factors such as lack of access to user‐friendly technology and time to observe performance may render its operationalisation burdensome in the context of competency‐based medical education.

IntroductionAssessment in Medical Education fills many roles and is under constant scrutiny. Assessments must be of good quality, and supported by validity evidence. Given the high-stakes consequences of assessment, and the many audiences within medical education (e. g., training level, specialty-specific), we set out to document the breadth, scope, and characteristics of the literature reporting on validation of assessments within medical education.MethodSearches in Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, ERIC, EMBASE (Ovid), and PsycINFO (Ovid) identified articles reporting on assessment of learners in medical education published since 1999. Included articles were coded for geographic origin, journal, journal category, targeted assessment, and authors. A map of collaborations between prolific authors was generated.ResultsA total of 2,863 articles were included. The majority of articles were from the United States, with Canada producing the most articles per medical school. Most articles were published in journals with medical categorizations (73.1% of articles), but Medical Education was the most represented journal (7.4% of articles). Articles reported on a variety of assessment tools and approaches, and 89 prolific authors were identified, with a total of 228 collaborative links.DiscussionLiterature reporting on validation of assessments in medical education is heterogeneous. Literature is produced by a broad array of authors and collaborative networks, reported to a broad audience, and is primarily generated in North American and European contexts. Our findings speak to the heterogeneity of the medical education literature on assessment validation, and suggest that this heterogeneity may stem, at least in part, from differences in constructs measured, assessment purposes, or conceptualizations of validity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-018-0433-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

La rédaction de questions à choix multiple et de questions à réponse ouverte et courte pour les examens écrits dans les programmes de formation en santé : une étude docimologique des consignes de rédaction

No abstract