Exploring subjectivity in competency-based assessment judgements of assessors

10Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this research was to measure variations in assessors’ judgements of a student dietitian's performance and to explore the influence of group discussion on their judgements. Methods: The assessments of a student's performance, as observed from a video recording of an authentic nutrition consultation, were measured pre- and post-group discussion by 26 experienced assessors using a mixed-methods questionnaire. The instrument included a validated 7-point visual analogue scale (VAS) rating (1 = novice; 7 = competent), a qualitative global description of performance and an assessor's confidence rating (1 = not at all confident; 10 = extremely confident). Scales were analysed descriptively and qualitative responses coded for key themes. Results: No agreement was found in assessors’ rating in either the pretest (median = 4, range = 5) or post-test (median = 4, range = 4); however, the discussion led 78% of participants (20/26) to change their VAS ratings (9/26) and/or confidence levels (16/26). Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis of the participants’ global descriptions of performance: (i) discourse supports assessors to justify their judgements, identify assumptions and learn from the observations of others; (ii) discourse leads assessors to more holistic judgements; and (iii) multiple sources of evidence and student reflections are necessary for credible judgement. Conclusions: This research questions the notion that ‘actual’ performance can be objectively measured and, rather, considers assessments as ‘interpretations’. This research calls for an integrated interpretivist student-centred approach to competency-based assessment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bacon, R., Holmes, K., & Palermo, C. (2017). Exploring subjectivity in competency-based assessment judgements of assessors. Nutrition and Dietetics, 74(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12326

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free