[Standards] Educational Achievement comments and recommendations

Christos Vaitsis christos.vaitsis at ki.se
Fri Oct 14 14:13:23 UTC 2016

My inline comments can be found also below.

Best regards,
Christos Vaitsis
Projektsamordnare/Project coordinator | MSc
Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, LIME
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm | Tomtebodavägen 18A plan 3
+46 73 712 1547
christos.vaitsis at ki.se | ki.se
Skype id: chrivai1
KI profile<http://ki.se/en/people/chrvai>
Karolinska Institutet – a medical university
From: Standards [standards-bounces at medbiq.org] on behalf of Valerie Smothers [vsmothers at jhmi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Valerie Smothers; standards at medbiq.org
Cc: educationaltrajectory at medbiq.org
Subject: Re: [Standards] Educational Achievement comments and recommendations

Dear Standards Committee and Educational Trajectory Working Group:

We’ve received additional comments and questions on the Educational Achievement specification from the ECFMG, which are noted below.

Section 8.2, Page 23, the Language element, indicates the language of the achievement data for a program of study. Would achievement data for a program ever be conveyed in more than one language? Are there Canadian schools that would have data in both French and English, for example?
If we think in the European context of health education, then yes this is highly likely.

Section 8.2, Page 23, Supporting Link, recommend multiple. That would allow for links to multiple supporting documents for the curriculum.

Section 8.3.1, page 29 and section 8.6.1, page 63, Site – recommend adding a sentence to provide recommended usage.

Section 8.3.3, page 36, Date – this is the date of assessment. Recommend adding clarification about which date should be used for assessments lasting more than one day – the last day or the first?
I think both cases (first or last day) do not reflect the duration of the assessment. Possibility to add the first day along with the duration e.g. October 14th - 2 days

Section 8.3.3, page Observation Duration and observer role – Is it possible to have more than one observer? And if there is more than one observer, should each observer’s duration of observation and role be captured independently?
Agree in distinguishing roles and duration.

Section 8.3.4, page 39, 44, and 47 – Not Yet assessable - Are there other possible reasons for a score to be missing (withheld, restricted, invalidated, pending, etc.)? Should those be documented?
No opinion

If you have opinions or insights on any of these questions, please share them with the group.

Many thanks,

From: Standards [mailto:standards-bounces at medbiq.org] On Behalf Of Valerie Smothers
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:57 AM
To: standards at medbiq.org
Subject: [Standards] Educational Achievement comments and recommendations

Dear Standards Committee,

The Educational Trajectory Working Group reviewed the compiled comments from the Standards Committee and has provided recommendations and proposed edits in response. There are two attached documents: one that shows compiled suggestions and recommendations and the revised spec. Please review and provide any comments by next Friday. October 7. Thank you!

Note that the proposed changes reflect feedback on the Educational Achievement spec from the ABP and NBME. The previous specification did not allow for the exchange of information related to the role of an observer making an assessment (ie attending physician, nurse, peer, etc) or the duration of the observation period for the assessment (one day, 30 days, etc). We’ve incorporated that feedback into the proposed changes, which are attached to this note. Adding these fields would make integration across systems involved in observational assessment more robust.


Valerie Smothers

Deputy Director


vsmothers at jhmi.edu<mailto:vsmothers at jhmi.edu>

Phone  410-735-6142

Fax 410-735-4660


Sign up for our newsletter!<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=001MV7eEgn-X0pc_X-SYPDDLA%3D%3D>

Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/medbiq>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://medbiq.org/pipermail/standards_medbiq.org/attachments/20161014/f762eabe/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list