LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات21
تعداد شماره‌ها1,281
تعداد مقالات11,708
تعداد مشاهده مقاله82,572,114
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله121,488,169
NASSIF, HOSSAIN MD, PING, YEW WEI, ARUNAZ, KUMAR, PETER, BARTON, NAZMUL, KARIM MD, MICHELLE, LEECH, DRAGAN, ILIC. (1405). Assessing Progress, Shaping Futures: A Qualitative Exploration of Final-Year Medical Students’ Perspectives on the Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx): A Novel Competency-Based Exam. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(3), 238-248. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2026.109580.2311
HOSSAIN MD NASSIF; YEW WEI PING; KUMAR ARUNAZ; BARTON J. M. PETER; KARIM MD NAZMUL; LEECH MICHELLE; ILIC DRAGAN. "Assessing Progress, Shaping Futures: A Qualitative Exploration of Final-Year Medical Students’ Perspectives on the Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx): A Novel Competency-Based Exam". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14, 3, 1405, 238-248. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2026.109580.2311
NASSIF, HOSSAIN MD, PING, YEW WEI, ARUNAZ, KUMAR, PETER, BARTON, NAZMUL, KARIM MD, MICHELLE, LEECH, DRAGAN, ILIC. (1405). 'Assessing Progress, Shaping Futures: A Qualitative Exploration of Final-Year Medical Students’ Perspectives on the Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx): A Novel Competency-Based Exam', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(3), pp. 238-248. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2026.109580.2311
NASSIF, HOSSAIN MD, PING, YEW WEI, ARUNAZ, KUMAR, PETER, BARTON, NAZMUL, KARIM MD, MICHELLE, LEECH, DRAGAN, ILIC. Assessing Progress, Shaping Futures: A Qualitative Exploration of Final-Year Medical Students’ Perspectives on the Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx): A Novel Competency-Based Exam. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1405; 14(3): 238-248. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2026.109580.2311

Assessing Progress, Shaping Futures: A Qualitative Exploration of Final-Year Medical Students’ Perspectives on the Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx): A Novel Competency-Based Exam

Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
دوره 14، شماره 3، مهر 2026، صفحه 238-248    اصل مقاله (818.58 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jamp.2026.109580.2311
نویسندگان
HOSSAIN MD NASSIF* 1؛ YEW WEI PING1، 2؛ KUMAR ARUNAZ2؛ BARTON J. M. PETER2؛ KARIM MD NAZMUL1؛ LEECH MICHELLE2؛ ILIC DRAGAN1
1School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (SPHPM), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (MNHS), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
چکیده
Introduction: Traditional OSCEs, while reliable, are criticized for limited authenticity, delayed feedback, and high stress. The Clinical Assessment for Progression Examination (Clinical APEx), a new competency-based assessment at Monash, was developed to address these issues.
Methods: We conducted an interpretivist qualitative interview study with 33 final-year medical students who completed both the Clinical APEx and OSCE, recruited via post-assessment survey and site-wide invitations. Semi-structured Zoom interviews were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis.
Results: Analysis revealed four key themes: Authenticity and Empathy, Feedback and Learning, Supportive Environment, and Challenges, which included concerns about standardisation, subjectivity, and under-assessment of clinical reasoning.
Conclusion: Beyond describing a local innovation, this study highlights broader mechanisms of educational impact, particularly authenticity, feedback, and psychological safety, that can inform assessment design across contexts. The Clinical APEx serves as a case example for reimagining high-stakes assessment as assessment for learning rather than solely of learning. These findings provides conceptual insights as to how clinical assessments might be made both rigorous and developmentally meaningful.

تازه های تحقیق
کلیدواژه‌ها
Clinical competence؛ Competency-based education؛ Medical education؛ Medical students؛ Qualitative research
مراجع
  1. Harden RM, Stevenson M, Downie WW, Wilson GM. Assessment of clinical competence using objective structured examination. BMJ. 1975;1(5955):447–51.
  2. Sloan DA, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW, EW. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination The New Gold Standard for Evaluating Postgraduate Clinical Performance. Ann Surg. 1995;222(6):735–42.
  3. Newble D. Techniques for measuring clinical competence: objective structured clinical examinations. Med Educ. 2004;38(2):199–203.
  4. Gulikers JTM, Bastiaens TJ, Kirschner PA. A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2004;52(3):67–86.
  5. Brand HS, Schoonheim‐Klein M. Is the OSCE more stressful? Examination anxiety and its consequences in different assessment methods in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2009;13(3):147–53.
  6. Azim Majumder A, Kumar A, Krishnamurthy K, Ojeh N, Adams OP, Sa B. An evaluative study of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): students and examiners perspectives. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:387–97.
  7. Schuwirth LWT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478–85.
  8. Watling CJ, Lingard L. Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants’ perceptions of the process. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17(2):183–94.
  9. Malau-Aduli BS, Jones K, Saad S, Richmond C. Has the OSCE Met Its Final Demise? Rebalancing Clinical Assessment Approaches in the Peri-Pandemic World. Front Med. 2022;9:825502.
  10. Khan H. OSCEs are outdated: clinical skills assessment should be centred around workplace-based assessments (WPBAS) to put the ‘art’ back into medicine. MedEdPublish. 2017;6:189.
  11. Giri J, Stewart C. Innovations in assessment in health professions education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A scoping review. Clin Teach. 2023;20(5):e13634.
  12. Kumar A, Sarkar M, Fullerton P, Vickers J, Barton P. Perceptions of the usefulness of an online simulated clinical examination. Int J Med Educ. 2025;16:45–51.
  13. ten Cate O. Competency-Based Postgraduate Medical Education: Past, Present and Future. GMS J Med Educ. 2017;34(5):Doc69.
  14. Harris P, Snell L, Talbot M, Harden RM. Competency-based medical education: implications for undergraduate programs. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):646–50.
  15. Schuwirth L, Ash J. Assessing tomorrow’s learners: In competency-based education only a radically different holistic method of assessment will work. Six things we could forget. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):555–9.
  16. Lurie SJ. History and practice of competency‐based assessment. Med Educ. 2012;46(1):49–57.
  17. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39(6):609–16.
  18. Hawkins RE, Welcher CM, Holmboe ES, Kirk LM, Norcini JJ, Simons KB, et al. Implementation of competency-based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges? Med Educ. 2015;49(11):1086–102.
  19. Khalafi A, Abbasi A, Sarvi Sarmeydani N, Albooghobeish M. Investigating the Effectiveness of Formative OSCE Combined with Visual Feedback in Improving Clinical Competence among Iranian Nurse Anesthesia Students: A Quasi-experimental study. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2024;12(4):251–60.
  20. Riaz Q, Khan M, Masoo S. Evaluating the Clinical Learning Environment for Competency-based Postgraduate Education in a Low-Middle Income Country: Trainee Perceptions using PHEEM Inventory. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2025;13(4):303-10.
  21. Edmondson A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83.
  22. Baimai S, Vanicharoenchai V, Iramaneerat C. Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2025;13(3):206-17.
  23. Gupta SK, Srivastava T. Assessment in Undergraduate Competency-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2024;16(4):e58073.
  24. Prediger S, Schick K, Fincke F, Fürstenberg S, Oubaid V, Kadmon M, et al. Validation of a competence-based assessment of medical students’ performance in the physician’s role. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):6.
  25. Scott S, Palincsar A. Sociocultural Theory [Internet]. The historical roots of sociocultural theory. 2025 [Cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://dr-hatfield.com/theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf.
  26. Scott S, Palincsar A. Sociocultural theory [Internet]. 2013 [Cited 2013 4 May]. Available from: http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/.
  27. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.
  28. Campbell C. Creating a Successful Implementation of PebblePad: The University Context. In: Allan CN, Campbell C, Crough J, editors. Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education [Internet]. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019 [Updated 2025 Nov 8]. p. 17–34. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_2.
  29. Altahawi F, Sisk B, Poloskey S, Hicks C, Dannefer EF. Student perspectives on assessment: Experience in a competency-based portfolio system. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):221–5.
  30. Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, Adendorff HJ, Herman N, Van Der Vleuten CP. The mechanism of impact of summative assessment on medical students’ learning. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15(5):695–715.
  31. Monrouxe LV, Bullock A, Gormley G, Kaufhold K, Kelly N, Roberts CE, et al. New graduate doctors’ preparedness for practice: a multistakeholder, multicentre narrative study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e023146.
  32. Berger R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2015;15(2):219–34.
  33. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
  34. Schuwirth LWT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. The use of clinical simulations in assessment. Med Educ. 2003;37:65–71.
  35. Govaerts MJB, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Holmboe ES. Managing tensions in assessment: moving beyond either–or thinking. Med Educ. 2019;53(1):64–75.
  36. Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS. The Mini-CEX: A Method for Assessing Clinical Skills. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(6):476–81.
  37. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29(9–10):855–71.
  38. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LKJ, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205–14.
  39. Donnon T, Al Ansari A, Al Alawi S, Violato C. The Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Multisource Feedback Physician Assessment: A Systematic Review. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):511–6.
  40. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):309–17.
  41. Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, Flynn TC. The Next GME Accreditation System — Rationale and Benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):1051–6.
  42. McLachlan JC. The relationship between assessment and learning. Med Educ. 2006;40(8):716–7.
  43. Harden RM, Gleeson FA. Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Med Educ. 1979;13(1):41–54.
  44. Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112.
  45. Shute VJ. Focus on Formative Feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(1):153–89.
  46. Burgess A, Van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(S2):460.
  47. Boud D, Molloy E, editors. Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding it and doing it well [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2025 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135107475.
  48. Kassab SE, Rathan R, Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. The impact of the educational environment on student engagement and academic performance in health professions education. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1278.
  49. Wass V, Van Der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of clinical competence. The Lancet. 2001;357(9260):945–9.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 11
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 14


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب