EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 17 / Numéro 4 (Novembre 2016) Pédagogie Médicale, 17 4 (2016) 261-267 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 17, Numéro 4, Novembre 2016
Page(s) 261 - 267
Section Littérature commentée
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2017014
Publié en ligne 4 septembre 2017
  1. Gauthier G, St-Onge C, Tavares W. Rater cognition: review and integration of research findings. Med Educ 2016;50:511-522. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. St-Onge C, Chamberland M, Lévesque A, Varpio L. Expectations, observations, and the cognitive processes that bind them: expert assessment of examinee performance. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2016;21:627-642. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jouquan J. L’évaluation des apprentissages des étudiants en formation médicale initiale. Pédagogie Médicale 2002;3:38-52. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  4. Howley LD. Performance assessment in Medical Education: where we’ve been and where we’re going. Eval Health Prof 2004;27:285-303. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Whitehead CR, Kuper A, Hodges B, Ellaway R. Conceptual and practical challenges in the assessment of physician competencies. Med Teach 2015;37:245-251. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Downing SM. Threats to the validity of clinical teaching assessments: what about rater error? Med Educ 2005;39:353-355. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach 2007;29:855-871. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Williams RG, Klamen DA, McGaghie WC. Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2003;15:270-292. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gingerich A, Kogan J, Yeates P, Govaerts M, Holmboe E. Seeing the ‘black box’ differently: assessor cognition from three research perspectives. Med Educ 2014;48:1055-1068. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Essers G, van Dulmen S, van Weel C, van der Vleuten C, Kramer A. Identifying context factors explaining physician's low performance in communication assessment: an explorative study in general practice. BMC Fam Pract 2011;12:1-8. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Govaerts MJB, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Muijtjens AMM. Workplace-based assessment: effects of rater expertise. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011;16:151-165. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Berendonk C, Stalmeijer R, Schuwirth LT. Expertise in performance assessment: assessors’ perspectives. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:559-571. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kogan JR, Conforti L, Bernabeo E, Iobst W, Holmboe E. Opening the black box of clinical skills assessment via observation: a conceptual model. Med Educ 2011;45:1048-1060. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. St-Onge C, Chamberland M, Lévesque A, Varpio L. The role of the assessor: exploring the clinical supervisor's skill set. The Clinical Teacher 2014;11:209-213. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lajoie SP. Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educ Res 2003;32:21-25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Yeates P, O’Neill P, Mann K, Eva K. Seeing the same thing differently: mechanisms that contribute to assessor differences in directly-observed performance assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:325-341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Audétat M-C, Laurin S, Sanche G. Aborder le raisonnement clinique du point de vue pédagogique - I. Un cadre conceptuel pour identifier les problèmes de raisonnement clinique. Pédagogie Médicale 2011;12: 223-229. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  18. Durning SJ, Artino ARJ, Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med 2013;88:442-448. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gomez-Garibello C, Young M. Emotions and assessment: examining rater-based judgements of entrustment. Soumis. [Google Scholar]
  20. Weber EU, Johnson EJ. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 2009;60:53-85. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernabeo E, Iobst W, Holmboe E. How faculty members experience workplace-based assessment rater training: a qualitative study. Med Educ 2015;49:692-708. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.