Trainees' perspectives of assessment messages: a narrative systematic review

This study was designed as a narrative systematic literature review of medical specialist trainees' perspectives of the assessment messages they receive in the context of clinical performance assessments. The aim of the study was to determine if trainees value the information they receive through the formats designed to promote their development and, if not, the reasons for this.

The authors searched the ERIC, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases for articles published up to 16 June 2018 that present original data on trainees' perspectives of the assessment messages they receive in the context of work-based assessments (WBAs) and in-training assessments (ITAs) used within their training programmes. All authors screened 938 abstracts and 139 full-text articles were assessed after this. Descriptions of quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data were used to present the opinions of trainees.

Thirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six articles (79%) described trainees' perspectives in the context of WBA and the remaining articles referred to ITA formats. Wide-ranging opinions were reported. The analysis categorised these into three themes: trainees value developmental assessment messages; trainees become disengaged when assessment messages are not developmental, and trainees' views depend on the environment, the assessor and themselves. Some trainees reported that the assessment messages were valuable and provided input on their performance to guide their development, but many disagreed. In particular, the trainee's own level of engagement with the assessments influenced his or her perspectives on the messages received.

Trainees do not universally perceive that clinical performance assessments provide them with the valuable developmental input on their performance they were designed to do. Factors related to the environment, the assessor and themselves influence their perspectives.