EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 17 / Numéro 4 (Novembre 2016) Pédagogie Médicale, 17 4 (2016) 261-267 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 17, Number 4, Novembre 2016
Page(s) 261 - 267
Section Littérature commentée
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2017014
Published online 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]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.