Why peer assessment helps to improve clinical performance in undergraduate physical therapy education: a mixed methods design

BMC Medical Education

Cees PM van der Vleuten⁴  Maria WG Nijhuis-van der Sanden¹  Yvonne F Heerkens³  Philip J van der Wees¹  Dominique MA Sluijsmans²  Marjo JM Maas¹ 

[1] Radboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Zuyd Hogeschool, Department Educational Research, Heerlen, The Netherlands;Dutch Institute of Allied Health Care, Amersfoort, The Netherlands;Maastricht University, Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Clinical performance;    Self-assessment;    Peer feedback;    Peer assessment;   

Others  :  866691
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-117

 received in 2014-01-29, accepted in 2014-06-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Peer Assessment (PA) in health professions education encourages students to develop a critical attitude towards their own and their peers’ performance. We designed a PA task to assess students’ clinical skills (including reasoning, communication, physical examination and treatment skills) in a role-play that simulated physical therapy (PT) practice. Students alternately performed in the role of PT, assessor, and patient. Oral face-to-face feedback was provided as well as written feedback and scores.

This study aims to explore the impact of PA on the improvement of clinical performance of undergraduate PT students.

Methods

The PA task was analyzed and decomposed into task elements. A qualitative approach was used to explore students’ perceptions of the task and the task elements. Semi-structured interviews with second year students were conducted to explore the perceived impact of these task elements on performance improvement. Students were asked to select the elements perceived valuable, to rank them from highest to lowest learning value, and to motivate their choices. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed, using a phenomenographical approach and following template analysis guidelines. A quantitative approach was used to describe the ranking results.

Results

Quantitative analyses showed that the perceived impact on learning varied widely. Performing the clinical task in the PT role, was assigned to the first place (1), followed by receiving expert feedback (2), and observing peer performance (3). Receiving peer feedback was not perceived the most powerful task element.

Qualitative analyses resulted in three emerging themes: pre-performance, true-performance, and post-performance triggers for improvement. Each theme contained three categories: learning activities, outcomes, and conditions for learning.

Intended learning activities were reported, such as transferring prior learning to a new application context and unintended learning activities, such as modelling a peer’s performance. Outcomes related to increased self-confidence, insight in performance standards and awareness of improvement areas. Conditions for learning referred to the quality of peer feedback.

Conclusions

PA may be a powerful tool to improve clinical performance, although peer feedback is not perceived the most powerful element. Peer assessors in undergraduate PT education use idiosyncratic strategies to assess their peers’ performance.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Maas et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wensing M, Grol R, Fluit C: Educatieve strategieën. In Implementatie Eff Verbet van patiëntenzorg. 4th edition. Amsterdam: Reed Business; 2011:326-340.
• [2]Grol R: Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 1994, 3:147-52.
• [3]Pronovost PJ, Hudson DW: Improving healthcare quality through organisational peer-to-peer assessment: lessons from the nuclear power industry. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21:872-875.
• [4]Sluijsmans DMA, Van Merriënboer JJG, Brand-gruwel S, Bastiaens TJ: The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Stud Educ Eval 2003, 29:23-42.
• [5]Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Perrier L, Thorpe KE: Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence. A systematic review. JAMA 2006, 296:1094-1102.
• [6]Eva KW, Regehr G: “ I ’ ll mever play professional football ” and other fallacies of self-assessment. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008, 28:14-19.
• [7]Rutten GM, Kremers S, Rutten ST, Harting J: A theory-based cross-sectional survey demonstrated the important role of awareness in guideline implementation. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:167-176.
• [8]Epstein RM, Siegel DJ, Silberman J: Self-monitoring in clinical practice: a challenge for medical educators. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008, 28:5-13.
• [9]Sargeant J, Eva KW, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Lockyer JM, Loney E, Mann KV, van der Vleuten CPM: Features of assessment learners use to make informed self-assessments of clinical performance. Med Educ 2011, 45:636-647.
• [10]Topping KJ: Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learn Instr 2010, 20:339-343.
• [11]Van Zundert M, Sluijsmans D, van Merriënboer J: Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn Instr 2010, 20:270-279.
• [12]Speyer R, Pilz W, Van Der Kruis J, Brunings JW: Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: a systematic review. Med Teach 2011, 33:572-585.
• [13]Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn Instr 2010, 20:304-315.
• [14]Eva KW: Assessing tutorial-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2001, 6:243-57.
• [15]Dannefer EF, Henson LC, Bierer SB, Grady-weliky TA, Meldrum S, Nofziger AC, Barclay C, Epstein RM: Peer assessment of professional competence. Med Educ 2005, 39:713-722.
• [16]Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP: Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993, 269:1655-1660.
• [17]Violato C, Lockyer J: Self and peer assessment of pediatricians, psychiatrists and medicine specialists: implications for self-directed learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2006, 11:235-244.
• [18]Birenbaum M: Evaluating the assessment: sources of evidence for quality assurance. Stud Educ Eval 2007, 33:29-49.
• [19]Strijbos J-W, Sluijsmans D: Unravelling peer assessment: methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learn Instr 2010, 20:265-269.
• [20]Boud D, Falchikov N: Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings. High Educ 1989, 18:529-549.
• [21]Tillema H, Leenknecht M, Segers M: Assessing assessment quality: criteria for quality assurance in design of (peer) assessment for learning - A review of research studies. Stud Educ Eval 2011, 37:25-34.
• [22]Van Gennip NAE, Segers MSR, Tillema HH: Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educ Res Rev 2009, 4:41-54.
• [23]Cottrell S, Diaz S, Cather A, Shumway J: Assessing Medical Student Professionalism: An Analysis of a Peer Assessment. Med Educ Online 2006, 11:1-8.
• [24]Epstein RM: Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:387-396.
• [25]Schaub-de Jong MA, Cohen-Schotanus J, Dekker H, Verkerk M: The role of peer meetings for professional development in health science education: a qualitative analysis of reflective essays. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009, 14:503-513.
• [26]Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM: Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med 2010, 85:140-147.
• [27]Abdulla A: A critical analysis of mini peer assessment tool (mini-PAT). J R Soc Med 2008, 101:22-26.
• [28]Norcini JJ: Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ 2003, 37:539-543.
• [29]Archer JC, Norcini J, Davies HA: Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. BMJ 2005, 330:1251-1253.
• [30]Farmer EA, Page G: A practical guide to assessing clinical decision-making skills using the key features approach. Med Educ 2005, 39:1188-1194.
• [31]Norman G, Bordage G, Page G, Keane D: How specific is case specificity? Med Educ 2006, 40:618-623.
• [32]Opheij M, Maas M, de Beer J: Onderzoek naar de inhoudsvaliditeit van het performance-assessment in de hoofdfase van de bacheloropleiding fysiotherapie. Tijdschr voor Med onderwijs 2006, 25:88-95.
• [33]Falchikov N: Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge Falmer; 2013.
• [34]Janssen-Noordman AMB, Merriënboer JJG, van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA: Design of integrated practice for learning professional competences. Med Teach 2006, 28:447-452.
• [35]King N, Cassel C, Symon G: Using templates in the thematic analysis of texts. In Essent Guid to Qual methods Organ Res. 1st edition. London: Sage; 2004:256-270.
• [36]Miles MB, Huberman MA: Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
• [37]Biggs J: What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. High Educ Res Dev 2006, 18:57-75.
• [38]Kluger AN, van Dijk D: Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ 2010, 44:1166-1174.
• [39]Liu NF, Carless D: Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teach High Educ 2006, 11:279-290.
• [40]Bandura A, Locke EA: Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol 2003, 88:87-99.
• [41]Bandura A: Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman; 1997.
• [42]Rush S, Firth T, Burke L, Marks-Maran D: Implementation and evaluation of peer assessment of clinical skills for first year student nurses. Nurse Educ Pract 2012, 12:219-226.
• [43]Simons P: Transfer of learning: paradoxes for learners. Int J Educ Res 1999, 31:577-589.
• [44]Ormrod JE: Human Learning. 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004:153-213.
• [45]Iacoboni M: Mirroring People: The new science of how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2009.
• [46]Calvo-Merino B, Glaser DE, Grèzes J, Passingham RE, Haggard P: Action observation and acquired motor skills: an FMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex 2005, 15:1243-9.
• [47]Govaerts MJ, Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CP, Muijtjens AM: Workplace-based assessment: effects of rater expertise. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011, 16:151-65.
• [48]Hanrahan S, Isaacs G: Assessing self and peer-assessment: the students’views. High Educ Res Dev 2001, 20:53-70.
• [49]Schӧn D: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.; 1983.
• [50]Van Gennip NA, Seger MS, Tillema HH: Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learn Instr 2010, 20:280-290.
• [51]Lin SSJ, Liu EZF, Yuan SM: Web-based peer assessment : feedback for students with various thinking-styles. J Comput Assist Learn 2001, 17:420-432.