Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 19, Numéro 1, Février 2018
Page(s) 15 - 25
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2019002
Publié en ligne 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]

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.