Abstract
The purpose of this study is investigation about validity and feasibility of clinical assessment methods in the point of view of clinical instructors. The descriptive study was done in Tehran city universities. Population study consisted of academic clinical experts. The instrument was a two-part questionnaire made by using Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education )ACGME) suggested questionnaire and valid scientific resources. Sampling was based-objected. Total of obtained questionnaires were 83 which were collected from universities Tehran University of Medical Sciences (39), Iran University of Medical Sciences (24) and Shahid Beheshti Medical University (20). Data analysis was conducted by SPSS16. Data indicated that the majority of the study population believed that MCQ (97.6%) is used in clinical setting. OSCE (92.8%) and Logbook (86.7%) are the next methods. Furthermore, Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) (8.4%) and Portfolio (6%) are not often used; whereas the most suitable and feasible medical students' clinical assessment tools in variety of domains are completely different so that there are lots of suggested methods for efficient evaluation. Also, the most suitable and feasible methods were the same in 60% cases. Clearly, no single rating is able to provide the whole story about any doctor’s ability to practice medicine, as this requires the demonstration of ongoing competence across a number of different general and specific areas.
Highlights
Assessment has a powerful positive steering effect on learning and the curriculum (Tabish, 2010) and drives both how a subject is taught and what is taught (Sultana, 2006)
In 2005, Van der Vleuten and Schuwirth expanded on these factors for purposes of assessment in medical education and added educational effect, feasibility, and acceptability to validity and reliability
In our study the majority of the study population (97.6%) believed that multiple-choice questions (MCQ) is used in clinical setting
Summary
Assessment has a powerful positive steering effect on learning and the curriculum (Tabish, 2010) and drives both how a subject is taught and what is taught (Sultana, 2006). In 2005, Van der Vleuten and Schuwirth expanded on these factors for purposes of assessment in medical education and added educational effect, feasibility, and acceptability to validity and reliability. Mahara (1998) believes that clinical evaluation processes should focus on reflection, meaning making and student teacher partnerships. The primary method for evaluation of both junior and senior medical student performance on the wards is typically a subjective and is written by the faculty (Colletti, 2000). Because of faculty time constraints, the increasing reliance on residents as teachers for medical students in the clinical setting at our institution has arisen largely (Johnson & Chen, 2006), and in many institutions, residents and fellows anticipate to write evaluation process. For junior rotations, many institutions complement the subjective written evaluation of clinical ward
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
