Adopter la prochaine frontière de l’évaluation
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81477Téléchargements
Références
1. Van Der Vleuten CP. The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996;1(1):41‑67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596229
2. Brown GTL. The past, present and future of educational assessment: a transdisciplinary perspective. Front Educ. 2022;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633
3. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81‑112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
4. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9):S63-7.
5. Ben-David MF. The role of assessment in expanding professional horizons. Med Teach. 2000;22(5):472‑7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590050110731
6. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):387‑96. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054784
7. Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, et al. 2018 Consensus framework for good assessment. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1102‑9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016
8. Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38(6):698‑712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
9. Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y. Amending Miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation. Acad Med. 2016;91(2):180‑5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000913
10. Edmondson AC. The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2018.
11. Gierl MJ, Haladyna TM. Automatic item generation: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge; 2013.
12. Lee J, Wu AS, Li D, Kulasegaram KM. Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: ascoping review. Acad Med. 2021;96(11S):S62‑70. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004291
13. García-Ramírez Y, Bijelić V. Assessing task prioritization for professors through affinity and satisfaction scores. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1):2321355. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2321355
14. Link AN, Swann CA, Bozeman B. A time allocation study of university faculty. Econ Educ Rev. 2008;27(4):363‑74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.04.002
15. Naveed H, Khan AU, Qiu S, et al. A comprehensive overview of large language models. ArXiv Prepr ArXiv230706435. 2023;
16. Liu Y, Cao J, Liu C, Ding K, Jin L. Datasets for large language models: a comprehensive survey. ArXiv Prepr ArXiv240218041. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18041
17. Sardi J, Candra O, Yuliana DF, Yanto DTP, Eliza F. How generative AI influences students’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills? A systematic review. Int J Eng Pedagogy. 2025;15(1):94‑108. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379
18. Panadero E. A review of self-regulated learning: six models and four directions for research. Front Psychol. 2017;8:422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
19. Roll I, Winne PH. Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning using learning analytics. J Learn Anal. 2015;2(1):7‑12. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.21.2
20. Yang C, Li J, Zhao W, Luo L, Shanks DR. Do practice tests (quizzes) reduce or provoke test anxiety? A meta-analytic review. Educ Psychol Rev. 2023;35(3):87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09801-w
21. Dawson P, Bearman M, Dollinger M, Boud D. Validity matters more than cheating. Assess Eval High Educ. 2024;49(7):1005‑16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2386662
22. Corbin T, Dawson P, Nicola-Richmond K, Partridge H. ‘Where’s the line? It’s an absurd line’: Towards a framework for acceptable uses of AI in assessment. Assess Eval High Educ. 2025;1‑13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2456207
23. Cochrane JD, Dudek N, Crawford K, Cowley L, LaDonna KA. Exploring the perspectives of new-in-practice specialists about the Health Advocate role: “I didn’t even know where to start” Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.78570
24. Pulkki KH, Pira S, Young M, et al. Considering the potential unintended consequences of RateMDs: an exploratory study in one specialty. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77821
25. Bartman I, St-Onge C, Roy M, et al. Multi-source feedback in undergraduate medical education: a pilot study. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79283
26. Bergeron L, Blanchette P, Chakroun M, et al. Are we optimizing medical students’ preparation for clerkship? A content analysis of narrative comments on clinical skills during preclinical training. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.78569
27. Benoit S, Bouchard-Lamothe D, Denis-LeBlanc M, Burnier I. Diagnostic hypothesis generation through engaged peer observation: a quantitative descriptive study in a clinical simulation context. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77080
28. Massalou D, Doyen J, Almairac F, et al. Can relaxation exercises improve students’ OSCE grades: a prospective study. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77739
29. Rowe J, Bouchard Lamothe D, Haggerty T, et al. Optimizing feedback reception: a scoping review of skills and strategies for medical learners. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79722
30. Lahouaoula I, Buckley H, Nathoo N. To be (virtual) or not to be: six ways to get a grip on choosing a delivery method for your educational program. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.78281
31. Azer B. Beyond the classroom: lessons in empathy and accessibility as a student clinician serving Calgary’s vulnerable populations. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80338
32. Kumar R, Gosain A, Saintyl JJ, Zheng A, Chima K, Cassagnol R. Bridging gaps in orthopedic residency admissions: embracing diversity beyond research metrics. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80775
33. Fisher LA, Aristizabal Londono C, Cropper K, Beresh G, Alhassan JA. Rethinking global health training: making the links between theory and practice. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79921
34. Shoppoff L, Mathew C, Burkholder Harris K, et al. Teaching compassion through a community-led, experiential learning activity for undergraduate medical students: the Empathy Project. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79452
35. Sinha S, Gilchrist C, Leung F-H. Breaking bad news, building better learners: using the SPIKES framework for medical education feedback. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80847
36. MacFarlane MM. A critical analysis of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada examination experience. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79678
37. Ali MK. The hidden curriculum. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81103
38. Modesto dos Santos V, Modesto Sugai K. Disclosure of bad news: a challenging practice? Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80918
39. Preti BT, Sanatani MS. Five ways to get a grip on the personal emotional cost of breaking bad news. Can Med Educ J. 2024;15(3):97-99. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.78228.
40. Bandiera G, Watling C, Horsley T, Dagnone D, Taber S, Bhanji F. Royal College exams, examined. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81283
41. Azer B, Dyson K, Ivaturi S. A glimpse beyond. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80997
42. Huntley JS. Constellations and the sound of hooves. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81116
43. Gilchrist C, Bismilla Z. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations practices across Canadian medical schools: a national overview. Can Med Educ J. 2025;16(2) https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80144
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Christina St-Onge 2025
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La soumission d’un manuscrit original à la revue constitue une indication qu’il s’agit d’un travail original, qu’il n’a jamais été publié et qu’il n’est pas envisagé pour publication dans une autre revue. S’il est accepté, il sera publié en ligne et ne pourra l’être ailleurs sous la même forme, à des fins commerciales, dans quelque langue que ce soit, sans l’accord de l’éditeur.
La publication d’une recherche scientifique a pour but la diffusion de connaissances et, sous un régime sans but lucratif, ne profite financièrement ni à l’éditeur ni à l’auteur.
Les auteurs qui publient dans la Revue canadienne d’éducation médicale acceptent de publier leurs articles sous la licence Creative Commons Paternité - Pas d’utilisation commerciale, Pas de modification 4.0 Canada. Cette licence permet à quiconque de télécharger et de partager l’article à des fins non commerciales, à condition d’en attribuer le crédit aux auteurs. Pour plus de détails sur les droits que les auteurs accordent aux utilisateurs de leur travail, veuillez consulter le résumé de la licence et la licence complète.
