EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 19 / Numéro 1 (Février 2018) Pédagogie Médicale, 19 1 (2018) 15-25 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 19, Number 1, Février 2018
Page(s) 15 - 25
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2019002
Published online 26 avril 2019
  1. Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med 2010;85:220‐7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Competency-based medical education. 2011 [On Line]. Disponible sur http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/educational_initiatives/cbme.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  3. ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med 2007;82:542‐7. [Google Scholar]
  4. ten Cate TJO, Snell L, Carraccio C. Medical competence: The interplay between individual ability and the health care environment. Med Teach 2010;32:669‐75. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kahn S, Rey B. La notion de compétence : une approche épistémologique. Éduc Francoph 2016; 44(2):4‐18. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harris P, Bhanji F, Topps M, Hart D, Snee S, Touchie C, et al. Evolving concepts of assessment in a competency-based world. Med Teach 2017;39:603‐8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M-K, Ross S, Lieberman S, Franck J, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2017;39:609‐16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Downing SM. Threats to the validity of clinical teaching assessments: What about rater error? Med Educ 2005;39:353‐355. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hawkins RE, Margolis MJ, Durning SJ, Norcini JJ. Constructing a validity argument for the mini-clinical evaluation exercise: A review of the research. Acad Med 2010;85:1453‐61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Norcini JJ. Current perspectives in assessment: The assessment of performance at work. Med Educ 2005;39:880‐9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pelgrim EA, Kramer AWM, Mokkink HG, Van den Elsen L, Grol RPTM, Van der Vleuten CPM. In-training assessment using direct observation of single-patient encounters: A literature review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011;16:131‐42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Berendonk C, Stalmeijer RE, Schuwirth LWT. Expertise in performance assessment: Assessors’ perspectives. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:559‐71. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gingerich A, Kogan J, Yeates P, Govaerts M, Holmboe E. Seeing the “black box” differently: Assessor cognition from three research perspectives. Med Educ 2014;48:1055‐68. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ginsburg S, McIlroy J, Oulanova O, Eva K, Regehr G. Toward authentic clinical evaluation: Pitfalls in the pursuit of competency. Acad Med 2010;85:780‐6. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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;21:627‐42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gauthier G, St-Onge C, Tavares W. Rater cognition: Review and integration of research findings. Med Educ 2016;50:511‐22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gauthier G, St-Onge C, Dory V. Synthèse et conceptualisation des processus cognitifs du jugement évaluatif de l’enseignant clinicien. Pédagogie Médicale 2016;17:261‐7. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooper HM. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev Educ Res 1982;52:291‐302. [Google Scholar]
  19. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005;52:546‐53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fortin M-F., Gagnon J. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche : méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. 3e édition. Montréal : Chenelière Éducation, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 1980;87(3):215‐51. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L. Basing the evaluation of professionalism on observable behaviors: A cautionary tale. Acad Med 2004;79:S1‐S4. [Google Scholar]
  24. Govaerts MJB, Van de Wiel MWJ, Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM, Muijtjens AMM. Workplace-based assessment: Raters’ performance theories and constructs. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:375‐96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kogan JR, Conforti L, Bernabeo E, Iobst W, Holmboe E, Holmboe E. Opening the black box of clinical skills assessment via observation: A conceptual model. Med Educ 2011;45:1048‐60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kogan JR, Hess BJ, Conforti LN, Holmboe ES. What drives faculty ratings of residents’ clinical skills? The impact of faculty’s own clinical skills. Acad Med 2010;85:S25‐S28. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rey B. « Compétence » et « compétence professionnelle ». Rech Form 2009;60:103‐16. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rey B. La notion de compétence en éducation et formation : enjeux et problèmes. Bruxelles : De Boeck, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Charmaz K. Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies, in The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Editors. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005, Vol. 3, p. 507‐535. [Google Scholar]
  30. van Someren MW, Barnard YF, Sandberg J. The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Eva K, Brooks L, Norman G. Forward reasoning as a hallmark of expertise in medicine: Logical, psychological, phenomenological inconsistencies, in Advances in psychology research, Shohov SP, Editor. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2002, Vol. 8, p. 41‐69. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoppmann TK. Examining the “point of frustration”. The think-aloud method applied to online search tasks. Qual Quant 2009;43:211‐24. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fortin MF. Fondements du processus de recherche : méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal : Chenelière Éducation, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Laperrière A. Les critères de scientificité des méthodes qualitatives, in La recherche qualitative : enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques, Poupart J, Groulx LH, Deslauriers JP, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires AP, Editors. Boucherville : Gaétan Morin, 1997, p. 365‐389. [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.