There is a need for formative assessment which offers trainees the opportunity for feedback. Several good methods exist and feedback has been shown to have a major influence on learning. The critical role of faculty is highlighted, as is the need for strategies to enhance their participation and training.

The measurement characteristics of the mini-CEX are similar to those of other performance assessments, such as standardized patients. Unlike these assessments, the difficulty of the examination will vary with the patients that a resident encounters. This effect is mitigated to a degree by the examiners, who slightly overcompensate for patient difficulty, and by the fact that each resident interacts with several patients. Furthermore, the mini-CEX has higher fidelity than these formats, permits evaluation based on a much broader set of clinical settings and patient problems, and is administered on site.

In this article, we outline criteria for good assessment that include: (1) validity or coherence, (2) reproducibility or consistency, (3) equivalence, (4) feasibility, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effect, and (7) acceptability. Many of the criteria have been described before and we continue to support their importance here. However, we place particular emphasis on the catalytic effect of the assessment, which is whether the assessment provides results and feedback in a fashion that creates, enhances, and supports education. These criteria do not apply equally well to all situations. Consequently, we discuss how the purpose of the test (summative versus formative) and the perspectives of stakeholders (examinees, patients, teachers-educational institutions, healthcare system, and regulators) influence the importance of the criteria. Finally, we offer a series of practice points as well as next steps that should be taken with the criteria. Specifically, we recommend that the criteria be expanded or modified to take account of: (1) the perspectives of patients and the public, (2) the intimate relationship between assessment, feedback, and continued learning, (3) systems of assessment, and (4) accreditation systems.

The mini-CEX assesses residents in a much broader range of clinical situations than the traditional CEX, has better reproducibility, and offers residents greater opportunity for observation and feedback by more than one faculty member and with more than one patient. On the other hand, the mini-CEX may be more difficult to administer because multiple encounters must be scheduled for each resident. Exclusive use of the mini-CEX also prevents residents from being observed while doing a complete history and physical examination. Given the promising results and measurement characteristics of the mini-CEX, however, the American Board of Internal Medicine encourages the use of this method in conjunction with or as an alternative to the traditional CEX.

We propose a new model, designated the Cambridge Model, which extends and refines Miller's pyramid. It inverts his pyramid, focuses exclusively on the top two tiers, and identifies performance as a product of competence, the influences of the individual (e.g. health, relationships), and the influences of the system (e.g. facilities, practice time). The model provides a basis for understanding and designing assessments of practice performance.

The education community has begun to address the challenges involved in implementing CBME. Models and guidance exist to inform implementation strategies across the continuum of education, and focus on the more efficient use of resources and technology, and the use of milestones and entrustable professional activities-based frameworks. Inconsistencies in CBME definitions and frameworks remain a significant obstacle. Evolution in assessment approaches from in vitro task-based methods to in vivo integrated approaches is responsive to many of the theoretical and conceptual concerns about CBME, but much work remains to be done to bring rigour and quality to work-based assessment.

A standard is an expression of professional values in the context of a test's purpose and content, the ability of the examinees, and the wider social or educational setting. Because standards are an expression of values, methods for setting them are systematic ways of gathering value judgements, reaching consensus and expressing that consensus as a single score on a test.

No abstract