To the content
Спецвыпуск . 2022

A FRESH LOOK AT MILLER'S PYRAMID: ASSESSMENT AT THE ‘IS’ AND ‘DO’ LEVELS

Abstract

In its silver jubilee, we celebrate the ground-breaking pyramid of George Miller by submitting a fresh look at it. We discuss two questions. Does the classical pyramidal structure perfectly portray the relationships of the four levels that were described by Miller? Can the model of Miller fulfill the unmet needs of assessors to measure evolving essential constructs and accommodate the increasingly sophisticated practice of assessment of health professionals? In response to the first question, Millers pyramid is revisited in view of two assumptions for pyramidal structures, namely: hierarchy and tapering. Then we suggest different configurations for the same classical four levels and indicate when to use each one. With regard to the second question, we provide a rationale for amending the pyramid with two further dimensions to assess personal qualities of students at the 'Is' level and their performance in teams at the 'Do' (together) level. At the end of the article, we yearn to think outside the pyramid and suggest the Assessment Orbits framework to assess students as individuals and in teams. The five Assessment Orbits alert educators to assess the emerging cognitive and non-cognitive constructs, without implying features such as hierarchy or tapering that are ingrained in pyramidal structures. The 'Is' orbit attends to the personal qualities of graduates 'who' we may (or may not) trust to be our physicians. Assessment of teams at the 'Do' level (together) offers a paradigm shift in assessment from competitive ranking (storming) among students toward norming and performing as teams.

*The article was first published in the journal of medical education. 2016; 50 (12): 1253-7. DOI: W. 1111 / medu.13101

Acknowledgements: none.

Funding: none.

Conflicts of interest: not stated.

References

1. Miller G.E. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/ performance. Acad Med. 1990; 65: S63-7.

2. van der Vleuten C.P.M., Schuwirth L.W.T. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005; 39 (3): 309-17.

3. Norcini J., Burch V. Workplace - based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007; 29: 855-71.

4. Hodges B.D., et al. Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011; 33: 354-63.

5. Arora S., Ashrafian H., Davis R., Athanasiou T., Darzi A., Sevdalis N. Emotional intelligence in medicine: a systematic review through the context of the ACGME competencies. Med Educ. 2010; 44 (8): 749-64.

6. McLachlan J. Measuring conscientiousness and professionalism in undergraduate medical students. Clin Teach. 2010; 7 (1): 37-40.

7. Hojat M., et al. Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty. Am J Psychiatry. 2002; 159: 1563-9.

8. Sandars J. The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 44. Med Teach. 2009; 31: 685-95.

9. Semerari A., et al. The development of the Metacognition Assessment interview: instrument description, factor structure and reliability in a non-clinical sample. Psychiatry Res. 2012; 200: 890-5.

10. Parratt J.A., et al. Expert validation of a teamwork assessment rubric: a modified Delphi study. Nurse Educ Today. 2016; 36: 77-85.

11. O'Sullivan H., McKimm J. Medical leadership and the medical student. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2011; 72: 346-9.

12. McKimm J., Wilkinson T. "Doctors on the move": exploring professionalism in the light of cultural transitions. Med Teach. 2015; 37 (9): 837-43.

13. Cruess R.L., Cruess S.R., Boudreau J.D., Snell L., Steinert Y. Reframing medical education to support professional identity formation. Acad Med. 2014; 89: 1446-51.

14. Jarvis-Selinger S., Pratt D.D., Regehr G. Competency is not enough: integrating identity formation into the medical education discourse. Acad Med. 2012; 87: 1185-90.

15. Cruess R.L., Cruess S.R., Steinert Y. Amending Miller's pyramid to include professional identity formation. Acad Med. 2015; 90: 1.

16. Roberts T.E. Assessment est mort, vive assessment 1. Med Teach. 2013; 35: 535-6.

17. Lingard L. What we see and don't see when we look at "competence": notes on a god term. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009; 14: 625-8.

18. Hodges B. Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013; 35: 564-8.

19. Gluyas H. Effective communication and teamwork promotes patient safety. Nurs Stand. 2015; 29: 50-7.

20. Belbin M. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2004: 168 p.

21. Harden J.R., Crosby M.H., Davis M., Friedman R.M. AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 5-From competency to metacompetency: a model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teach. 1999; 21: 546-52.

22. Whitehead C.R., Kuper A., Hodges B., Ellaway R. Conceptual and practical challenges in the assessment of physician competencies. Med Teach. 2015; 37: 245-51.

23. Ten Cate O., et al. Curriculum development for the workplace using Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs): AMEE Guide No. 99. Med Teach. 2015; 37: 983-1002.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)

CHIEF EDITOR
CHIEF EDITOR
Balkizov Zalim Zamirovich
Secretary General of the Russian Society of Medical Education Specialists, Director of the Institute of Training of Medical Education Specialists of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, 125993, Moscow, Russian Federation, Professor of the Department of Vocational Education and Educational Technologies of the N.I. Pirogov RNIMU of the MOH of Russia, CEO of GEOTAR-Med, Advisor President of the National Medical Chamber, Moscow, Russian Federation

Journals of «GEOTAR-Media»