Search

Context: There is increasing agreement that graduates who finish tertiary education with the full complement of skills and knowledge required for their designated profession are not 'work-ready' unless they also acquire interpersonal, collaborative practice and team-working capabilities. Health workers are unable to contribute to organisational culture in a positive way unless they too attain these capabilities. These capabilities have been shown to improve health care in terms of patient safety, worker satisfaction and health service efficiency. Given the importance of interprofessional learning (IPL) which seeks to address these capabilities, why is IPL not consistently embedded into the education of undergraduates, postgraduates and vocationally qualified personnel through formal assessment?, Methods: This paper offers an argument for the formal assessment of IPL. It illustrates how the interests of the many stakeholders in IPL can benefit from, and contribute to, the integration of IPL into mainstream professional development and tertiary education. It offers practical examples of assessment in IPL which could drive learning and offer authentic, contextual teaching and learning experiences to undergraduates and health workers alike., Conclusions: Assessment drives learning and without formal assessment IPL will continue to be viewed as an optional topic of little relative importance for learners. In order to make the next step forward, IPL needs to be recognised and endorsed through formal assessment, both at the tertiary education level and within the workplace environment. This is supported by workforce initiatives and tertiary education policy which can be used to specify the capabilities or generic skills necessary for effective teamwork and collaborative practice.

Objectives: This study aims to identify whether non-science graduates perform as well as science graduates in Basic and Clinical Sciences (B & CS) assessments during Years 1-3 of a four-year graduate-entry programme at the University of Sydney (the 'USydMP')., Methods: Students were grouped into five categories: Health Professions (HP), Biomedical Sciences (BMS), Other Biology (BIOL), Physical Sciences (PHYS) or Non-Science (NONS). We examined the performance rank of students in each of the five groups for single best answer (SBA) and modified essay (MEQ) assessments separately, and also calculated the relative risk of failure in the summative assessments in Years 2 and 3., Results: Students with science-based prior degrees performed better in the SBA assessments. The same occurred initially in the MEQs, but the effect diminished with time. The HP students performed consistently better but converged with other groups over time, particularly in the MEQs. Relative performance by the NONS students improved with time in both assessment formats. Overall, differences between the highest and lowest groups were small and very few students failed to meet the overall standard for the summative assessments. HP and BMS students had the lowest failure rate. NONS students were more likely to fail the assessments in Year 2 and 3, but their pass rates were still high. Female students performed significantly better overall at the end of Year 2 and in Year 3. There were only minor differences between Australian resident and International students., Conclusion: While there are small differences in performance in B & CS early in the programme, these lessen with time. The study results will inform decisions regarding timing of summative assessments, selection policy and for providing additional support to students who need it to minimize their risk of failure. Readers should note that this paper refers to student performance in only one of the four curriculum themes, where health professional and science graduates would be expected to have a significant advantage.

This paper reports a study which compared the performance of different groups of students and doctors on identical and equivalent tests set in an objective-type format and in a free-response format. The tests were designed to ensure that the content was relevant to clinical practice at the hospital intern level. In all test situations candidates' scores were significantly higher in the objective tests than in the free-response tests. This difference was greater for the more junior and less competent students than for the more competent doctors. The cueing effect of the options was thought to be the main factor responsible for the difference in performance. The results of a questionnaire survey demonstrated that students were aware of the deficiencies in multiple-choice tests. A large majority of the students believed that the free-response tests gave a more accurate assessment of their clinical ability. It was found that in these tests, aimed at measuring aspects of clinical competence, multiple-choice questions appeared to overestimate the candidate's ability to an extent that made them less suitable than free-response questions for this purpose. It was also found that free-response tests, of the type used in this study, provide a suitable alternative to multiple-choice tests for use in the written section of clinical examinations. It was concluded that the written component of the final examination in the medical course should have a preponderance of free-response items over multiple-choice items.