Competency-based medical education and the McNamara fallacy: Assessing the important or making the assessed important?

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Postgraduate Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_337_22
T Singh, N Shah
{"title":"Competency-based medical education and the McNamara fallacy: Assessing the important or making the assessed important?","authors":"T Singh,&nbsp;N Shah","doi":"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_337_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The McNamara fallacy refers to the tendency to focus on numbers, metrics, and quantifiable data while disregarding the meaningful qualitative aspects. The existence of such a fallacy in medical education is reviewed in this paper. Competency-based medical education (CBME) has been introduced in India with the goal of having Indian Medical Graduates competent in five different roles - Clinician, Communicator, Leader and member of the health care team, Professional, and Lifelong learner. If we only focus on numbers and structure to assess the competencies pertaining to these roles, we would be falling prey to the McNamara fallacy. To assess these roles in the real sense, we need to embrace the qualitative assessment methods and appreciate their value in competency-based education. This can be done by using various workplace-based assessments, choosing tools based on educational impact rather than psychometric properties, using narratives and descriptive evaluation, giving grades instead of marks, and improving the quality of the questions asked in various exams. There are challenges in adopting qualitative assessment starting with being able to move past the objective-subjective debate, to developing expertise in conducting and documenting such assessment, and adding the rigor of qualitative research methods to enhance its credibility. The perspective on assessment thus needs a paradigm shift - we need to assess the important rather than just making the assessed important; and this would be crucial for the success of the CBME curriculum.</p>","PeriodicalId":16860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","volume":"69 1","pages":"35-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997611/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_337_22","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The McNamara fallacy refers to the tendency to focus on numbers, metrics, and quantifiable data while disregarding the meaningful qualitative aspects. The existence of such a fallacy in medical education is reviewed in this paper. Competency-based medical education (CBME) has been introduced in India with the goal of having Indian Medical Graduates competent in five different roles - Clinician, Communicator, Leader and member of the health care team, Professional, and Lifelong learner. If we only focus on numbers and structure to assess the competencies pertaining to these roles, we would be falling prey to the McNamara fallacy. To assess these roles in the real sense, we need to embrace the qualitative assessment methods and appreciate their value in competency-based education. This can be done by using various workplace-based assessments, choosing tools based on educational impact rather than psychometric properties, using narratives and descriptive evaluation, giving grades instead of marks, and improving the quality of the questions asked in various exams. There are challenges in adopting qualitative assessment starting with being able to move past the objective-subjective debate, to developing expertise in conducting and documenting such assessment, and adding the rigor of qualitative research methods to enhance its credibility. The perspective on assessment thus needs a paradigm shift - we need to assess the important rather than just making the assessed important; and this would be crucial for the success of the CBME curriculum.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以能力为基础的医学教育与麦克纳马拉谬误:评价重要的还是使被评价的重要?
麦克纳马拉谬误指的是人们倾向于关注数字、指标和可量化的数据,而忽略了有意义的定性方面。本文对医学教育中存在的这种谬论进行了评述。印度引入了以能力为基础的医学教育(CBME),其目标是使印度医学毕业生能够胜任五个不同的角色——临床医生、传播者、卫生保健团队的领导者和成员、专业人员和终身学习者。如果我们只关注数字和结构来评估与这些角色相关的能力,我们将成为麦克纳马拉谬误的牺牲品。要真正评估这些角色,我们需要采用定性评估方法,并欣赏它们在能力教育中的价值。这可以通过使用各种基于工作场所的评估,根据教育影响而不是心理测量属性选择工具,使用叙述和描述性评估,给出分数而不是分数,以及提高各种考试中所提问题的质量来实现。在采用定性评估方面存在挑战,首先要能够超越客观-主观的辩论,发展进行和记录这种评估的专业知识,并增加定性研究方法的严谨性以提高其可信度。因此,评估的观点需要一个范式转变——我们需要评估重要的东西,而不仅仅是使被评估的东西变得重要;这对CBME课程的成功至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical, clinical and bioengineering studies related to human well being including ethical and social issues. The journal gives preference to clinically oriented studies over experimental and animal studies. The Journal would publish peer-reviewed original research papers, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and debates.
期刊最新文献
Trends in oral anticoagulant use - A 10-year retrospective analysis from a general medicine department of a tertiary care hospital in south India. Skull-base temporal encephalocele: Hidden cause of temporal lobe epilepsy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pheochromocytoma - paraganglioma: A single center experience. Primary colonic natural-killer T-cell lymphoma mimicking Crohn's disease. Surgical considerations in congenital nontumorous obstructive hydrocephalus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1